Search (65 results, page 1 of 4)

0.0144263785 = product of:
  0.043279134 = sum of:
    0.029076494 = weight(_text_:b in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029076494 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
    0.014202639 = product of:
      0.028405279 = sum of:
        0.028405279 = weight(_text_:22 in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028405279 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1468348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041930884 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 56, 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=56)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The study reported here investigated the query expansion behavior of end-users interacting with a thesaurus-enhanced search system on the Web. Two groups, namely academic staff and postgraduate students, were recruited into this study. Data were collected from 90 searches performed by 30 users using the OVID interface to the CAB abstracts database. Data-gathering techniques included questionnaires, screen capturing software, and interviews. The results presented here relate to issues of search-topic and search-term characteristics, number and types of expanded queries, usefulness of thesaurus terms, and behavioral differences between academic staff and postgraduate students in their interaction. The key conclusions drawn were that (a) academic staff chose more narrow and synonymous terms than did postgraduate students, who generally selected broader and related terms; (b) topic complexity affected users' interaction with the thesaurus in that complex topics required more query expansion and search term selection; (c) users' prior topic-search experience appeared to have a significant effect on their selection and evaluation of thesaurus terms; (d) in 50% of the searches where additional terms were suggested from the thesaurus, users stated that they had not been aware of the terms at the beginning of the search; this observation was particularly noticeable in the case of postgraduate students.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:32:43

0.01356903 = product of:
  0.08141418 = sum of:
    0.08141418 = weight(_text_:b in 7543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08141418 = score(doc=7543,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.54802394 = fieldWeight in 7543, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7543)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0116305975 = product of:
  0.06978358 = sum of:
    0.06978358 = weight(_text_:b in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06978358 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.46973482 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.010965433 = product of:
  0.0657926 = sum of:
    0.0657926 = weight(_text_:b in 7024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0657926 = score(doc=7024,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.44287026 = fieldWeight in 7024, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7024)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Reviews the basic techniques of computerized indexing, including various file accessing methods such as: Sequential Access Method (SAM); Direct Access Method (DAM); Indexed Sequential Access Method (ISAM), and Virtual Indexed Sequential Access Method (VSAM); and various B-tree (balanced tree)structures. Illustrates how records are stored and accessed, and how B-trees are used to for improving the operations of information retrieval and maintenance

0.010965433 = product of:
  0.0657926 = sum of:
    0.0657926 = weight(_text_:b in 7223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0657926 = score(doc=7223,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.44287026 = fieldWeight in 7223, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7223)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Explains how a computer indexing system works. Reviews fundamentals of how data are stored and retrieved by computers. Describes B-Tree and B+-Tree indexing structures. Gives basic keyword searching techniques that the user must apply to make use of the indexing programs. The demand for keyword retrieval is increasing and librarians should expect to see the keyword-indexing feature become commonly available

0.009692165 = product of:
  0.05815299 = sum of:
    0.05815299 = weight(_text_:b in 6640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05815299 = score(doc=6640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.3914457 = fieldWeight in 6640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6640)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.009692165 = product of:
  0.05815299 = sum of:
    0.05815299 = weight(_text_:b in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05815299 = score(doc=1696,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.3914457 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.008224075 = product of:
  0.049344447 = sum of:
    0.049344447 = weight(_text_:b in 4119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049344447 = score(doc=4119,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.3321527 = fieldWeight in 4119, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4119)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this work, we investigate the problem of using the block structure of Web pages to improve ranking results. Starting with basic intuitions provided by the concepts of term frequency (TF) and inverse document frequency (IDF), we propose nine block-weight functions to distinguish the impact of term occurrences inside page blocks, instead of inside whole pages. These are then used to compute a modified BM25 ranking function. Using four distinct Web collections, we ran extensive experiments to compare our block-weight ranking formulas with two other baselines: (a) a BM25 ranking applied to full pages, and (b) a BM25 ranking that takes into account best blocks. Our methods suggest that our block-weighting ranking method is superior to all baselines across all collections we used and that average gain in precision figures from 5 to 20% are generated.

0.008016243 = product of:
  0.048097454 = sum of:
    0.048097454 = product of:
      0.09619491 = sum of:
        0.09619491 = weight(_text_:psychologie in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09619491 = score(doc=4292,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24666919 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8827567 = idf(docFreq=334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041930884 = queryNorm
            0.38997537 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.8827567 = idf(docFreq=334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.007753731 = product of:
  0.046522386 = sum of:
    0.046522386 = weight(_text_:b in 3) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046522386 = score(doc=3,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 3, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.007753731 = product of:
  0.046522386 = sum of:
    0.046522386 = weight(_text_:b in 5392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046522386 = score(doc=5392,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 5392, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5392)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.007574741 = product of:
  0.045448445 = sum of:
    0.045448445 = product of:
      0.09089689 = sum of:
        0.09089689 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09089689 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1468348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041930884 = 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

0.007123011 = product of:
  0.042738065 = sum of:
    0.042738065 = weight(_text_:kognitive in 5965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042738065 = score(doc=5965,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28477833 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7916126 = idf(docFreq=134, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.15007485 = fieldWeight in 5965, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7916126 = idf(docFreq=134, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5965)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Ein wesentliches Bedürfnis im Rahmen der Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion ist die Suche nach Information. Um Information Retrieval (IR) Systeme kognitiv adäquat zu gestalten und sie an den Menschen anzupassen bieten sich Modelle des Soft Computing an. Ein umfassender state-of-the-art Bericht zu neuronalen Netzen im IR zeigt dass die meisten bestehenden Modelle das Potential neuronaler Netze nicht ausschöpfen. Das vorgestellte COSIMIR-Modell (Cognitive Similarity learning in Information Retrieval) basiert auf neuronalen Netzen und lernt, die Ähnlichkeit zwischen Anfrage und Dokument zu berechnen. Es trägt somit die kognitive Modellierung in den Kern eines IR Systems. Das Transformations-Netzwerk ist ein weiteres neuronales Netzwerk, das die Behandlung von Heterogenität anhand von Expertenurteilen lernt. Das COSIMIR-Modell und das Transformations-Netzwerk werden ausführlich diskutiert und anhand realer Datenmengen evaluiert

0.006853395 = product of:
  0.04112037 = sum of:
    0.04112037 = weight(_text_:b in 6118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04112037 = score(doc=6118,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.2767939 = fieldWeight in 6118, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6118)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The techniques of clustering and space transformation have been successfully used in the past to solve a number of pattern recognition problems. In this article, the authors propose a new approach to content-based image retrieval (CBIR) that uses (a) a newly proposed similarity-preserving space transformation method to transform the original low-level image space into a highlevel vector space that enables efficient query processing, and (b) a clustering scheme that further improves the efficiency of our retrieval system. This combination is unique and the resulting system provides synergistic advantages of using both clustering and space transformation. The proposed space transformation method is shown to preserve the order of the distances in the transformed feature space. This strategy makes this approach to retrieval generic as it can be applied to object types, other than images, and feature spaces more general than metric spaces. The CBIR approach uses the inexpensive "estimated" distance in the transformed space, as opposed to the computationally inefficient "real" distance in the original space, to retrieve the desired results for a given query image. The authors also provide a theoretical analysis of the complexity of their CBIR approach when used for color-based retrieval, which shows that it is computationally more efficient than other comparable approaches. An extensive set of experiments to test the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed approach has been performed. The results show that the approach offers superior response time (improvement of 1-2 orders of magnitude compared to retrieval approaches that either use pruning techniques like indexing, clustering, etc., or space transformation, but not both) with sufficiently high retrieval accuracy.

0.006853395 = product of:
  0.04112037 = sum of:
    0.04112037 = weight(_text_:b in 4120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04112037 = score(doc=4120,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.2767939 = fieldWeight in 4120, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, 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.

0.006853395 = product of:
  0.04112037 = sum of:
    0.04112037 = weight(_text_:b in 5356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04112037 = score(doc=5356,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.2767939 = fieldWeight in 5356, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5356)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.006784515 = product of:
  0.04070709 = sum of:
    0.04070709 = weight(_text_:b in 4968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04070709 = score(doc=4968,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 4968, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4968)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.006784515 = product of:
  0.04070709 = sum of:
    0.04070709 = weight(_text_:b in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04070709 = score(doc=5023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.006784515 = product of:
  0.04070709 = sum of:
    0.04070709 = weight(_text_:b in 638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04070709 = score(doc=638,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 638, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=638)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Many successful retrieval models are derived based on or conform to the probability ranking principle (PRP). We present a new derivation of a document ranking function given by the probability of relevance of a document, conforming to the PRP. Our formulation yields a family of retrieval models, called probabilistic binary relevance (PBR) models, with various instantiations obtained by different probability estimations. By extensive experiments on a range of TREC collections, improvement of the PBR models over some established baselines with statistical significance is observed, especially in the large Clueweb09 Cat-B collection.

0.006627898 = product of:
  0.03976739 = sum of:
    0.03976739 = product of:
      0.07953478 = sum of:
        0.07953478 = weight(_text_:22 in 2134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07953478 = score(doc=2134,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1468348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041930884 = 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