Search (28 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Suchmaschinen"
  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalalgorithmen"
  1. Kanaeva, Z.: Ranking: Google und CiteSeer (2005) 0.06 
    0.058575716 = product of:
  0.08786357 = sum of:
    0.031532075 = weight(_text_:im in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031532075 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.2186231 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
    0.056331497 = product of:
      0.08449724 = sum of:
        0.03610713 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610713 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
        0.048390117 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048390117 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Im Rahmen des klassischen Information Retrieval wurden verschiedene Verfahren für das Ranking sowie die Suche in einer homogenen strukturlosen Dokumentenmenge entwickelt. Die Erfolge der Suchmaschine Google haben gezeigt dass die Suche in einer zwar inhomogenen aber zusammenhängenden Dokumentenmenge wie dem Internet unter Berücksichtigung der Dokumentenverbindungen (Links) sehr effektiv sein kann. Unter den von der Suchmaschine Google realisierten Konzepten ist ein Verfahren zum Ranking von Suchergebnissen (PageRank), das in diesem Artikel kurz erklärt wird. Darüber hinaus wird auf die Konzepte eines Systems namens CiteSeer eingegangen, welches automatisch bibliographische Angaben indexiert (engl. Autonomous Citation Indexing, ACI). Letzteres erzeugt aus einer Menge von nicht vernetzten wissenschaftlichen Dokumenten eine zusammenhängende Dokumentenmenge und ermöglicht den Einsatz von Banking-Verfahren, die auf den von Google genutzten Verfahren basieren.
    Date
    20. 3.2005 16:23:22
  2. Tober, M.; Hennig, L.; Furch, D.: SEO Ranking-Faktoren und Rang-Korrelationen 2014 : Google Deutschland (2014) 0.04 
    0.036313996 = product of:
  0.05447099 = sum of:
    0.03603666 = weight(_text_:im in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03603666 = score(doc=1484,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.24985497 = fieldWeight in 1484, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1484)
    0.01843433 = product of:
      0.055302992 = sum of:
        0.055302992 = weight(_text_:22 in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055302992 = score(doc=1484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Dieses Whitepaper beschäftigt sich mit der Definition und Bewertung von Faktoren, die eine hohe Rangkorrelation-Koeffizienz mit organischen Suchergebnissen aufweisen und dient dem Zweck der tieferen Analyse von Suchmaschinen-Algorithmen. Die Datenerhebung samt Auswertung bezieht sich auf Ranking-Faktoren für Google-Deutschland im Jahr 2014. Zusätzlich wurden die Korrelationen und Faktoren unter anderem anhand von Durchschnitts- und Medianwerten sowie Entwicklungstendenzen zu den Vorjahren hinsichtlich ihrer Relevanz für vordere Suchergebnis-Positionen interpretiert.
    Date
    13. 9.2014 14:45:22
  3. Lanvent, A.: Licht im Daten Chaos (2004) 0.03 
    0.0314755 = product of:
  0.047213245 = sum of:
    0.04029021 = weight(_text_:im in 2806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04029021 = score(doc=2806,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.27934635 = fieldWeight in 2806, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2806)
    0.006923034 = product of:
      0.0207691 = sum of:
        0.0207691 = weight(_text_:online in 2806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0207691 = score(doc=2806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.13412495 = fieldWeight in 2806, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2806)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Content
    "Bitte suchen Sie alle Unterlagen, die im PC zum Ibelshäuser-Vertrag in Sprockhövel gespeichert sind. Finden Sie alles, was wir haben - Dokumente, Tabellen, Präsentationen, Scans, E-Mails. Und erledigen Sie das gleich! « Wer diese Aufgabe an das Windows-eigene Suchmodul vergibt, wird zwangsläufig enttäuscht. Denn das Betriebssystem beherrscht weder die formatübergreifende Recherche noch die Kontextsuche, die für solche komplexen Aufträge nötig sind. Professionelle Desktop-Suchmaschinen erledigen Aufgaben dieser Art jedoch im Handumdrehen - genauer gesagt in einer einzigen Sekunde. Spitzenprogramme wie Global Brain benötigen dafür nicht einmal umfangreiche Abfrageformulare. Es genügt, einen Satz im Eingabefeld zu formulieren, der das Thema der gewünschten Dokumente eingrenzt. Dabei suchen die Programme über alle Laufwerke, die sich auf dem System einbinden lassen - also auch im Netzwerk-Ordner (Shared Folder), sofern dieser freigegeben wurde. Allen Testkandidaten - mit Ausnahme von Search 32 - gemeinsam ist, dass sie weitaus bessere Rechercheergebnisse abliefern als Windows, deutlich schneller arbeiten und meist auch in den Online-Postfächern stöbern. Wer schon öfter vergeblich über die Windows-Suche nach wichtigen Dokumenten gefahndet hat, kommt angesichts der Qualität der Search-Engines kaum mehr um die Anschaffung eines Desktop-Suchtools herum. Aber Microsoft will nachbessern. Für den Windows-XP-Nachfolger Longhorn wirbt der Hersteller vor allem mit dem Hinweis auf das neue Dateisystem WinFS, das sämtliche Files auf der Festplatte über Meta-Tags indiziert und dem Anwender damit lange Suchläufe erspart. So sollen sich anders als bei Windows XP alle Dateien zu bestimmten Themen in wenigen Sekunden auflisten lassen - unabhängig vom Format und vom physikalischen Speicherort der Files. Für die Recherche selbst ist dann weder der Dateiname noch das Erstelldatum ausschlaggebend. Anhand der kontextsensitiven Suche von WinFS kann der Anwender einfach einen Suchbefehl wie »Vertragsabschluss mit Firma XYZ, Neunkirchen/Saar« eingeben, der dann ohne Umwege zum Ziel führt."
  4. Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Internet-Suchwerkzeuge im Vergleich (IV) : Relevance Ranking nach "Popularität" von Webseiten: Google (2001) 0.02 
    0.01801833 = product of:
  0.054054987 = sum of:
    0.054054987 = weight(_text_:im in 5771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054054987 = score(doc=5771,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.37478244 = fieldWeight in 5771, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5771)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    In unserem Retrievaltest von Suchwerkzeugen im World Wide Web (Password 11/2000) schnitt die Suchmaschine Google am besten ab. Im Vergleich zu anderen Search Engines setzt Google kaum auf Informationslinguistik, sondern auf Algorithmen, die sich aus den Besonderheiten der Web-Dokumente ableiten lassen. Kernstück der informationsstatistischen Technik ist das "PageRank"- Verfahren (benannt nach dem Entwickler Larry Page), das aus der Hypertextstruktur des Web die "Popularität" von Seiten anhand ihrer ein- und ausgehenden Links berechnet. Google besticht durch das Angebot intuitiv verstehbarer Suchbildschirme sowie durch einige sehr nützliche "Kleinigkeiten" wie die Angabe des Rangs einer Seite, Highlighting, Suchen in der Seite, Suchen innerhalb eines Suchergebnisses usw., alles verstaut in einer eigenen Befehlsleiste innerhalb des Browsers. Ähnlich wie RealNames bietet Google mit dem Produkt "AdWords" den Aufkauf von Suchtermen an. Nach einer Reihe von nunmehr vier Password-Artikeln über InternetSuchwerkzeugen im Vergleich wollen wir abschließend zu einer Bewertung kommen. Wie ist der Stand der Technik bei Directories und Search Engines aus informationswissenschaftlicher Sicht einzuschätzen? Werden die "typischen" Internetnutzer, die ja in der Regel keine Information Professionals sind, adäquat bedient? Und können auch Informationsfachleute von den Suchwerkzeugen profitieren?
  5. Weinstein, A.: Hochprozentig : Tipps and tricks für ein Top-Ranking (2002) 0.02 
    0.015015274 = product of:
  0.045045823 = sum of:
    0.045045823 = weight(_text_:im in 1083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045045823 = score(doc=1083,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.3123187 = fieldWeight in 1083, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1083)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Die Suchmaschinen haben in den letzten Monaten an ihren Ranking-Algorithmen gefeilt, um Spamern das Handwerk zu erschweren. Internet Pro beleuchtet die Trends im Suchmaschinen-Marketing
  6. Chakrabarti, S.; Dom, B.; Kumar, S.R.; Raghavan, P.; Rajagopalan, S.; Tomkins, A.; Kleinberg, J.M.; Gibson, D.: Neue Pfade durch den Internet-Dschungel : Die zweite Generation von Web-Suchmaschinen (1999) 0.01 
    0.01201222 = product of:
  0.03603666 = sum of:
    0.03603666 = weight(_text_:im in 3) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03603666 = score(doc=3,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.24985497 = fieldWeight in 3, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Die im WWW verfügbare Datenmenge wächst mit atemberaubender Geschwindigkeit; entsprechend schwieriger wird es, relevante Informationen zu finden. ein neues Analyseverfahren stellt nahezu automatische Abhilfe in Aussicht
  7. Back, J.: ¬An evaluation of relevancy ranking techniques used by Internet search engines (2000) 0.01 
    0.01075336 = product of:
  0.03226008 = sum of:
    0.03226008 = product of:
      0.09678023 = sum of:
        0.09678023 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09678023 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    25. 8.2005 17:42:22
  8. Weiß, B.: Verwandte Seiten finden : "Ähnliche Seiten" oder "What's Related" (2005) 0.01 
    0.010617403 = product of:
  0.031852208 = sum of:
    0.031852208 = weight(_text_:im in 868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031852208 = score(doc=868,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.22084267 = fieldWeight in 868, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=868)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Die Link-Struktur-Analyse (LSA) ist nicht nur beim Crawling, dem Webseitenranking, der Abgrenzung geographischer Bereiche, der Vorhersage von Linkverwendungen, dem Auffinden von "Mirror"-Seiten, dem Kategorisieren von Webseiten und beim Generieren von Webseitenstatistiken eines der wichtigsten Analyseverfahren, sondern auch bei der Suche nach verwandten Seiten. Um qualitativ hochwertige verwandte Seiten zu finden, bildet sie nach herrschender Meinung den Hauptbestandteil bei der Identifizierung von ähnlichen Seiten innerhalb themenspezifischer Graphen vernetzter Dokumente. Dabei wird stets von zwei Annahmen ausgegangen: Links zwischen zwei Dokumenten implizieren einen verwandten Inhalt beider Dokumente und wenn die Dokumente aus unterschiedlichen Quellen (von unterschiedlichen Autoren, Hosts, Domänen, .) stammen, so bedeutet dies das eine Quelle die andere über einen Link empfiehlt. Aufbauend auf dieser Idee entwickelte Kleinberg 1998 den HITS Algorithmus um verwandte Seiten über die Link-Struktur-Analyse zu bestimmen. Dieser Ansatz wurde von Bharat und Henzinger weiterentwickelt und später auch in Algorithmen wie dem Companion und Cocitation Algorithmus zur Suche von verwandten Seiten basierend auf nur einer Anfrage-URL weiter verfolgt. In der vorliegenden Seminararbeit sollen dabei die Algorithmen, die hinter diesen Überlegungen stehen, näher erläutert werden und im Anschluss jeweils neuere Forschungsansätze auf diesem Themengebiet aufgezeigt werden.
    Content
    Ausarbeitung im Rahmen des Seminars Suchmaschinen und Suchalgorithmen, Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik Praktische Informatik in der Wirtschaft, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster. - Vgl.: http://www-wi.uni-muenster.de/pi/lehre/ss05/seminarSuchen/Ausarbeitungen/BurkhardWei%DF.pdf
  9. Berry, M.W.; Browne, M.: Understanding search engines : mathematical modeling and text retrieval (1999) 0.01 
    0.009098142 = product of:
  0.027294425 = sum of:
    0.027294425 = product of:
      0.081883274 = sum of:
        0.081883274 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081883274 = score(doc=5777,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.5305404 = fieldWeight in 5777, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5777)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This book discusses many of the key design issues for building search engines and emphazises the important role that applied mathematics can play in improving information retrieval. The authors discuss not only important data structures, algorithms, and software but also user-centered issues such as interfaces, manual indexing, and document preparation. They also present some of the current problems in information retrieval that many not be familiar to applied mathematicians and computer scientists and some of the driving computational methods (SVD, SDD) for automated conceptual indexing
    RSWK
    Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval
    Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval / Mathematisches Modell (HEBIS)
    Subject
    Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval
    Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval / Mathematisches Modell (HEBIS)
  10. Notess, G.R.: Search engine relevance : the never-ending quest (2000) 0.01 
    0.008076874 = product of:
  0.02423062 = sum of:
    0.02423062 = product of:
      0.07269186 = sum of:
        0.07269186 = weight(_text_:online in 4797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07269186 = score(doc=4797,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.46943733 = fieldWeight in 4797, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4797)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Online. 24(2000) no.3, S.35-40
  11. Dominich, S.; Skrop, A.: PageRank and interaction information retrieval (2005) 0.01 
    0.006877549 = product of:
  0.020632647 = sum of:
    0.020632647 = product of:
      0.06189794 = sum of:
        0.06189794 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06189794 = score(doc=3268,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 3268, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3268)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The PageRank method is used by the Google Web search engine to compute the importance of Web pages. Two different views have been developed for the Interpretation of the PageRank method and values: (a) stochastic (random surfer): the PageRank values can be conceived as the steady-state distribution of a Markov chain, and (b) algebraic: the PageRank values form the eigenvector corresponding to eigenvalue 1 of the Web link matrix. The Interaction Information Retrieval (1**2 R) method is a nonclassical information retrieval paradigm, which represents a connectionist approach based an dynamic systems. In the present paper, a different Interpretation of PageRank is proposed, namely, a dynamic systems viewpoint, by showing that the PageRank method can be formally interpreted as a particular case of the Interaction Information Retrieval method; and thus, the PageRank values may be interpreted as neutral equilibrium points of the Web.
  12. Berry, M.W.; Browne, M.: Understanding search engines : mathematical modeling and text retrieval (2005) 0.01 
    0.0064842156 = product of:
  0.019452646 = sum of:
    0.019452646 = product of:
      0.058357935 = sum of:
        0.058357935 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058357935 = score(doc=7,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 7, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The second edition of Understanding Search Engines: Mathematical Modeling and Text Retrieval follows the basic premise of the first edition by discussing many of the key design issues for building search engines and emphasizing the important role that applied mathematics can play in improving information retrieval. The authors discuss important data structures, algorithms, and software as well as user-centered issues such as interfaces, manual indexing, and document preparation. Significant changes bring the text up to date on current information retrieval methods: for example the addition of a new chapter on link-structure algorithms used in search engines such as Google. The chapter on user interface has been rewritten to specifically focus on search engine usability. In addition the authors have added new recommendations for further reading and expanded the bibliography, and have updated and streamlined the index to make it more reader friendly.
    RSWK
    Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval
    Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval / Mathematisches Modell (HEBIS)
    Subject
    Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval
    Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval / Mathematisches Modell (HEBIS)
  13. Ding, Y.; Chowdhury, G.; Foo, S.: Organsising keywords in a Web search environment : a methodology based on co-word analysis (2000) 0.01 
    0.005956133 = product of:
  0.017868398 = sum of:
    0.017868398 = product of:
      0.05360519 = sum of:
        0.05360519 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05360519 = score(doc=105,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 105, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=105)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The rapid development of the Internet and World Wide Web has caused some critical problem for information retrieval. Researchers have made several attempts to solve these problems. Thesauri and subject heading lists as traditional information retrieval tools have been criticised for their efficiency to tackle these newly emerging problems. This paper proposes an information retrieval tool generated by cocitation analysis, comprising keyword clusters with relationships based on the co-occurrences of keywords in the literature. Such a tool can play the role of an associative thesaurus that can provide information about the keywords in a domain that might be useful for information searching and query expansion
  14. Jindal, V.; Bawa, S.; Batra, S.: ¬A review of ranking approaches for semantic search on Web (2014) 0.01 
    0.005956133 = product of:
  0.017868398 = sum of:
    0.017868398 = product of:
      0.05360519 = sum of:
        0.05360519 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05360519 = score(doc=2799,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    With ever increasing information being available to the end users, search engines have become the most powerful tools for obtaining useful information scattered on the Web. However, it is very common that even most renowned search engines return result sets with not so useful pages to the user. Research on semantic search aims to improve traditional information search and retrieval methods where the basic relevance criteria rely primarily on the presence of query keywords within the returned pages. This work is an attempt to explore different relevancy ranking approaches based on semantics which are considered appropriate for the retrieval of relevant information. In this paper, various pilot projects and their corresponding outcomes have been investigated based on methodologies adopted and their most distinctive characteristics towards ranking. An overview of selected approaches and their comparison by means of the classification criteria has been presented. With the help of this comparison, some common concepts and outstanding features have been identified.
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  15. Courtois, M.P.; Berry, M.W.: Results ranking in Web search engines (1999) 0.01 
    0.005769195 = product of:
  0.017307585 = sum of:
    0.017307585 = product of:
      0.051922753 = sum of:
        0.051922753 = weight(_text_:online in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051922753 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.33531237 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Online. 23(1999) no.3, S.39-46
  16. Bauckhage, C.: Marginalizing over the PageRank damping factor (2014) 0.01 
    0.005731291 = product of:
  0.017193872 = sum of:
    0.017193872 = product of:
      0.051581617 = sum of:
        0.051581617 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051581617 = score(doc=928,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    In this note, we show how to marginalize over the damping parameter of the PageRank equation so as to obtain a parameter-free version known as TotalRank. Our discussion is meant as a reference and intended to provide a guided tour towards an interesting result that has applications in information retrieval and classification.
  17. Furner, J.: ¬A unifying model of document relatedness for hybrid search engines (2003) 0.00 
    0.0046085827 = product of:
  0.013825747 = sum of:
    0.013825747 = product of:
      0.04147724 = sum of:
        0.04147724 = weight(_text_:22 in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04147724 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    11. 9.2004 17:32:22
  18. Langville, A.N.; Meyer, C.D.: Google's PageRank and beyond : the science of search engine rankings (2006) 0.00 
    0.003844667 = product of:
  0.011534001 = sum of:
    0.011534001 = product of:
      0.034602 = sum of:
        0.034602 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034602 = score(doc=6,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.22419426 = fieldWeight in 6, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=6)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Content
    Inhalt: Chapter 1. Introduction to Web Search Engines: 1.1 A Short History of Information Retrieval - 1.2 An Overview of Traditional Information Retrieval - 1.3 Web Information Retrieval Chapter 2. Crawling, Indexing, and Query Processing: 2.1 Crawling - 2.2 The Content Index - 2.3 Query Processing Chapter 3. Ranking Webpages by Popularity: 3.1 The Scene in 1998 - 3.2 Two Theses - 3.3 Query-Independence Chapter 4. The Mathematics of Google's PageRank: 4.1 The Original Summation Formula for PageRank - 4.2 Matrix Representation of the Summation Equations - 4.3 Problems with the Iterative Process - 4.4 A Little Markov Chain Theory - 4.5 Early Adjustments to the Basic Model - 4.6 Computation of the PageRank Vector - 4.7 Theorem and Proof for Spectrum of the Google Matrix Chapter 5. Parameters in the PageRank Model: 5.1 The a Factor - 5.2 The Hyperlink Matrix H - 5.3 The Teleportation Matrix E Chapter 6. The Sensitivity of PageRank; 6.1 Sensitivity with respect to alpha - 6.2 Sensitivity with respect to H - 6.3 Sensitivity with respect to vT - 6.4 Other Analyses of Sensitivity - 6.5 Sensitivity Theorems and Proofs Chapter 7. The PageRank Problem as a Linear System: 7.1 Properties of (I - alphaS) - 7.2 Properties of (I - alphaH) - 7.3 Proof of the PageRank Sparse Linear System Chapter 8. Issues in Large-Scale Implementation of PageRank: 8.1 Storage Issues - 8.2 Convergence Criterion - 8.3 Accuracy - 8.4 Dangling Nodes - 8.5 Back Button Modeling
    Chapter 9. Accelerating the Computation of PageRank: 9.1 An Adaptive Power Method - 9.2 Extrapolation - 9.3 Aggregation - 9.4 Other Numerical Methods Chapter 10. Updating the PageRank Vector: 10.1 The Two Updating Problems and their History - 10.2 Restarting the Power Method - 10.3 Approximate Updating Using Approximate Aggregation - 10.4 Exact Aggregation - 10.5 Exact vs. Approximate Aggregation - 10.6 Updating with Iterative Aggregation - 10.7 Determining the Partition - 10.8 Conclusions Chapter 11. The HITS Method for Ranking Webpages: 11.1 The HITS Algorithm - 11.2 HITS Implementation - 11.3 HITS Convergence - 11.4 HITS Example - 11.5 Strengths and Weaknesses of HITS - 11.6 HITS's Relationship to Bibliometrics - 11.7 Query-Independent HITS - 11.8 Accelerating HITS - 11.9 HITS Sensitivity Chapter 12. Other Link Methods for Ranking Webpages: 12.1 SALSA - 12.2 Hybrid Ranking Methods - 12.3 Rankings based on Traffic Flow Chapter 13. The Future of Web Information Retrieval: 13.1 Spam - 13.2 Personalization - 13.3 Clustering - 13.4 Intelligent Agents - 13.5 Trends and Time-Sensitive Search - 13.6 Privacy and Censorship - 13.7 Library Classification Schemes - 13.8 Data Fusion Chapter 14. Resources for Web Information Retrieval: 14.1 Resources for Getting Started - 14.2 Resources for Serious Study Chapter 15. The Mathematics Guide: 15.1 Linear Algebra - 15.2 Perron-Frobenius Theory - 15.3 Markov Chains - 15.4 Perron Complementation - 15.5 Stochastic Complementation - 15.6 Censoring - 15.7 Aggregation - 15.8 Disaggregation
  19. Radev, D.; Fan, W.; Qu, H.; Wu, H.; Grewal, A.: Probabilistic question answering on the Web (2005) 0.00 
    0.0034387745 = product of:
  0.0103163235 = sum of:
    0.0103163235 = product of:
      0.03094897 = sum of:
        0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03094897 = score(doc=3455,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 3455, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3455)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Web-based search engines such as Google and NorthernLight return documents that are relevant to a user query, not answers to user questions. We have developed an architecture that augments existing search engines so that they support natural language question answering. The process entails five steps: query modulation, document retrieval, passage extraction, phrase extraction, and answer ranking. In this article, we describe some probabilistic approaches to the last three of these stages. We show how our techniques apply to a number of existing search engines, and we also present results contrasting three different methods for question answering. Our algorithm, probabilistic phrase reranking (PPR), uses proximity and question type features and achieves a total reciprocal document rank of .20 an the TREC8 corpus. Our techniques have been implemented as a Web-accessible system, called NSIR.
  20. Thelwall, M.: Can Google's PageRank be used to find the most important academic Web pages? (2003) 0.00 
    0.0034387745 = product of:
  0.0103163235 = sum of:
    0.0103163235 = product of:
      0.03094897 = sum of:
        0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03094897 = score(doc=4457,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4457, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4457)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Google's PageRank is an influential algorithm that uses a model of Web use that is dominated by its link structure in order to rank pages by their estimated value to the Web community. This paper reports on the outcome of applying the algorithm to the Web sites of three national university systems in order to test whether it is capable of identifying the most important Web pages. The results are also compared with simple inlink counts. It was discovered that the highest inlinked pages do not always have the highest PageRank, indicating that the two metrics are genuinely different, even for the top pages. More significantly, however, internal links dominated external links for the high ranks in either method and superficial reasons accounted for high scores in both cases. It is concluded that PageRank is not useful for identifying the top pages in a site and that it must be combined with a powerful text matching techniques in order to get the quality of information retrieval results provided by Google.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 19
  • d 9

Types

  • a 23
  • m 3
  • el 1
  • r 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications