Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.041710816 = product of:
  0.06256622 = sum of:
    0.038683258 = weight(_text_:management in 2065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038683258 = score(doc=2065,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 2065, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2065)
    0.02388296 = product of:
      0.04776592 = sum of:
        0.04776592 = weight(_text_:system in 2065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04776592 = score(doc=2065,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 2065, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2065)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The thesis of this study is to propose an extended methodology for laboratory based Information Retrieval evaluation under incomplete relevance assessments. This new methodology aims to identify potential uncertainty during system comparison that may result from incompleteness. The adoption of this methodology is advantageous, because the detection of epistemic uncertainty - the amount of knowledge (or ignorance) we have about the estimate of a system's performance - during the evaluation process can guide and direct researchers when evaluating new systems over existing and future test collections. Across a series of experiments we demonstrate how this methodology can lead towards a finer grained analysis of systems. In particular, we show through experimentation how the current practice in Information Retrieval evaluation of using a measurement depth larger than the pooling depth increases uncertainty during system comparison.

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.2, S.811-837

0.037740998 = product of:
  0.056611493 = sum of:
    0.032236047 = weight(_text_:management in 1081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032236047 = score(doc=1081,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 1081, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1081)
    0.024375446 = product of:
      0.048750892 = sum of:
        0.048750892 = weight(_text_:system in 1081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048750892 = score(doc=1081,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.30135927 = fieldWeight in 1081, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1081)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The aim of the work described in this paper is to evaluate the influencing effects of query-biased summaries in web searching. For this purpose, a summarisation system has been developed, and a summary tailored to the user's query is generated automatically for each document retrieved. The system aims to provide both a better means of assessing document relevance than titles or abstracts typical of many web search result lists. Through visiting each result page at retrieval-time, the system provides the user with an idea of the current page content and thus deals with the dynamic nature of the web. To examine the effectiveness of this approach, a task-oriented, comparative evaluation between four different web retrieval systems was performed; two that use query-biased summarisation, and two that use the standard ranked titles/abstracts approach. The results from the evaluation indicate that query-biased summarisation techniques appear to be more useful and effective in helping users gauge document relevance than the traditional ranked titles/abstracts approach. The same methodology was used to compare the effectiveness of two of the web's major search engines; AltaVista and Google.

Source

Information processing and management. 39(2003) no.5, S.689-706

0.02780721 = product of:
  0.041710813 = sum of:
    0.025788838 = weight(_text_:management in 2019) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025788838 = score(doc=2019,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 2019, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2019)
    0.015921975 = product of:
      0.03184395 = sum of:
        0.03184395 = weight(_text_:system in 2019) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03184395 = score(doc=2019,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.19684705 = fieldWeight in 2019, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2019)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Evaluation has always been a strong element of Information Retrieval (IR) research, much of our focus being on how we evaluate IR algorithms. As a research field we have benefited greatly from initiatives such as Cranfield, TREC, CLEF and INEX that have added to our knowledge of how to create test collections, the reliability of system-based evaluation criteria and our understanding of how to interpret the results of an algorithmic evaluation. In contrast, evaluations whose main focus is the user experience of searching have not yet reached the same level of maturity. Such evaluations are complex to create and assess due to the increased number of variables to incorporate within the study, the lack of standard tools available (for example, test collections) and the difficulty of selecting appropriate evaluation criteria for study. In spite of the complicated nature of user-centred evaluations, this form of evaluation is necessary to understand the effectiveness of individual IR systems and user search interactions. The growing incorporation of users into the evaluation process reflects the changing nature of IR within society; for example, more and more people have access to IR systems through Internet search engines but have little training or guidance in how to use these systems effectively. Similarly, new types of search system and new interactive IR facilities are becoming available to wide groups of end-users. In this special topic issue we present papers that tackle the methodological issues of evaluating interactive search systems. Methodologies can be presented at different levels; the papers by Blandford et al. and Petrelli present whole methodological approaches for evaluating interactive systems whereas those by Göker and Myrhaug and López Ostenero et al., consider what makes an appropriate evaluation methodological approach for specific retrieval situations. Any methodology must consider the nature of the methodological components, the instruments and processes by which we evaluate our systems. A number of papers have examined these issues in detail: Käki and Aula focus on specific methodological issues for the evaluation of Web search interfaces, Lopatovska and Mokros present alternate measures of retrieval success, Tenopir et al. examine the affective and cognitive verbalisations that occur within user studies and Kelly et al. analyse questionnaires, one of the basic tools for evaluations. The range of topics in this special issue as a whole nicely illustrates the variety and complexity by which user-centred evaluation of IR systems is undertaken.

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.1-3

0.022333791 = product of:
  0.06700137 = sum of:
    0.06700137 = weight(_text_:management in 5057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06700137 = score(doc=5057,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.38701317 = fieldWeight in 5057, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5057)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this article, the authors discuss reretrieving personal information objects and relate the task to recovering from lapse(s) in memory. They propose that memory lapses impede users from successfully refinding the information they need. Their hypothesis is that by learning more about memory lapses in noncomputing contexts and about how people cope and recover from these lapses, we can better inform the design of personal information management (PIM) tools and improve the user's ability to reaccess and reuse objects. They describe a diary study that investigates the everyday memory problems of 25 people from a wide range of backgrounds. Based on the findings, they present a series of principles that they hypothesize will improve the design of PIM tools. This hypothesis is validated by an evaluation of a tool for managing personal photographs, which was designed with respect to the authors' findings. The evaluation suggests that users' performance when refinding objects can be improved by building personal information management tools to support characteristics of human memory.

0.015043489 = product of:
  0.045130465 = sum of:
    0.045130465 = weight(_text_:management in 2042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045130465 = score(doc=2042,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 2042, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2042)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.2, S.437-462

0.01289442 = product of:
  0.038683258 = sum of:
    0.038683258 = weight(_text_:management in 964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038683258 = score(doc=964,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 964, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=964)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.1, S.166-190

0.010745349 = product of:
  0.032236047 = sum of:
    0.032236047 = weight(_text_:management in 5035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032236047 = score(doc=5035,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 5035, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5035)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Information processing and management. 56(2019) no.1, S.77-90

0.0065674796 = product of:
  0.019702438 = sum of:
    0.019702438 = product of:
      0.039404877 = sum of:
        0.039404877 = weight(_text_:system in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039404877 = score(doc=211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this article, I propose the concept of resonance as a useful one for describing what it means to experience relevance. Based on an extensive interdisciplinary review, I provide a novel framework that presents resonance as a spectrum of experience with a multitude of outcomes ranging from a sense of harmony and coherence to life transformation. I argue that resonance has different properties to the more traditional interpretation of relevance and provides a better system of explanation of what it means to experience relevance. I show how traditional approaches to relevance and resonance work in a complementary fashion and outline how resonance may present distinct new lines of research into relevance theory.

0.0057991315 = product of:
  0.017397394 = sum of:
    0.017397394 = product of:
      0.03479479 = sum of:
        0.03479479 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03479479 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 950, 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=950)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 4.2023 19:27:56

0.004691057 = product of:
  0.01407317 = sum of:
    0.01407317 = product of:
      0.02814634 = sum of:
        0.02814634 = weight(_text_:system in 5064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02814634 = score(doc=5064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 5064, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Advances in search technology have meant that search systems can now offer assistance to users beyond simply retrieving a set of documents. For example, search systems are now capable of inferring user interests by observing their interaction, offering suggestions about what terms could be used in a query, or reorganizing search results to make exploration of retrieved material more effective. When providing new search functionality, system designers must decide how the new functionality should be offered to users. One major choice is between (a) offering automatic features that require little human input, but give little human control; or (b) interactive features which allow human control over how the feature is used, but often give little guidance over how the feature should be best used. This article presents a study in which we empirically investigate the issue of control by presenting an experiment in which participants were asked to interact with three experimental systems that vary the degree of control they had in creating queries, indicating which results are relevant in making search decisions. We use our findings to discuss why and how the control users want over search decisions can vary depending on the nature of the decisions and the impact of those decisions on the user's search.

0.0037528453 = product of:
  0.011258536 = sum of:
    0.011258536 = product of:
      0.022517072 = sum of:
        0.022517072 = weight(_text_:system in 638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022517072 = score(doc=638,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 638, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=638)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Relevance is the distinguishing feature of IR research. It is the intricacy of relevance, and its basis in human decision-making, which defines and shapes our research field. Relevance as a concept cuts across the spectrum of information seeking and IR research from investigations into information seeking behaviours to theoretical models of IR. Given their mutual dependence on relevance we might predict a strong relationship between information seeking and retrieval in how they regard and discuss the role of relevance within our research programmes. However often, too often, information seeking and IR have been continued as independent research traditions: IR research ignoring the extensive, user-based frameworks developed by information seeking and information seeking underestimating the influence of IR systems and interfaces within the information seeking process. When these two disciplines come together we often find the strongest research, research that is motivated by an understanding of what cognitive processes require support during information seeking, and an understanding of how this support might be provided by an IR system. The aim of this chapter is to investigate this common ground of research, in particular to examine the central notion of relevance that underpins both information seeking and IR research. It seeks to investigate how our understanding of relevance as a process of human decision making can, and might, influence our design of interactive IR systems. It does not cover every area of IR research, or each area in the same depth; rather we try to single out the areas where the nature of relevance, and its implications, is driving the research agenda. We start by providing a brief introduction to how relevance has been treated so far in the literature and then consider the key areas where issues of relevance are of current concern. Specifically the chapter discusses the difficulties of making and interpreting relevance assessments, the role and meaning of differentiated relevance assessments, the specific role of time within information seeking, and the large, complex issue of relevance within evaluations of IR systems. In each area we try to establish where the two fields of IR and information seeking are establishing fruitful collaborations, where there is a gap for prospective collaboration and the possible difficulties in establishing mutual aims.