Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.022989638 = product of:
  0.045979276 = sum of:
    0.045979276 = product of:
      0.09195855 = sum of:
        0.09195855 = weight(_text_:web in 3318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09195855 = score(doc=3318,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5408555 = fieldWeight in 3318, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3318)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We analyze 18- million rows of Wi-Fi access logs collected over a 1-year period from over 120,000 anonymized users at an inner city shopping mall. The anonymized data set gathered from an opt-in system provides users' approximate physical location as well as web browsing and some search history. Such data provide a unique opportunity to analyze the interaction between people's behavior in physical retail spaces and their web behavior, serving as a proxy to their information needs. We found that (a) there is a weekly periodicity in users' visits to the mall; (b) people tend to visit similar mall locations and web content during their repeated visits to the mall; (c) around 60% of registered Wi-Fi users actively browse the web, and around 10% of them use Wi-Fi for accessing web search engines; (d) people are likely to spend a relatively constant amount of time browsing the web while the duration of their visit may vary; (e) the physical spatial context has a small, but significant, influence on the web content that indoor users browse; and (f) accompanying users tend to access resources from the same web domains.

0.021456998 = product of:
  0.042913996 = sum of:
    0.042913996 = product of:
      0.08582799 = sum of:
        0.08582799 = weight(_text_:web in 2852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08582799 = score(doc=2852,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 2852, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2852)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This brief communication describes the results of a questionnaire examining certain aspects of the Web-based information seeking practices of university students. The results are contrasted with past work showing that queries to Web search engines can be assigned to one of a series of categories: navigational, informational, and transactional. The survey results suggest that a large group of queries, which in the past would have been classified as informational, have become at least partially navigational. We contend that this change has occurred because of the rise of large Web sites holding particular types of information, such as Wikipedia and the Internet Movie Database.

0.015326426 = product of:
  0.030652853 = sum of:
    0.030652853 = product of:
      0.061305705 = sum of:
        0.061305705 = weight(_text_:web in 2926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061305705 = score(doc=2926,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 2926, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2926)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We examined whether the microblog comments given by people after reading a web document could be exploited to improve the accuracy of a web document summarization system. We examined the effect of social information (i.e., tweets) on the accuracy of the generated summaries by comparing the user preference for TBS (tweet-biased summary) with GS (generic summary). The result of crowdsourcing-based evaluation shows that the user preference for TBS was significantly higher than GS. We also took random samples of the documents to see the performance of summaries in a traditional evaluation using ROUGE, which, in general, TBS was also shown to be better than GS. We further analyzed the influence of the number of tweets pointed to a web document on summarization accuracy, finding a positive moderate correlation between the number of tweets pointed to a web document and the performance of generated TBS as measured by user preference. The results show that incorporating social information into the summary generation process can improve the accuracy of summary. The reason for people choosing one summary over another in a crowdsourcing-based evaluation is also presented in this article.

0.014117276 = product of:
  0.028234553 = sum of:
    0.028234553 = product of:
      0.056469105 = sum of:
        0.056469105 = weight(_text_:22 in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056469105 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6971, 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=6971)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon

0.013004904 = product of:
  0.026009807 = sum of:
    0.026009807 = product of:
      0.052019615 = sum of:
        0.052019615 = weight(_text_:web in 1867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052019615 = score(doc=1867,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 1867, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1867)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A brief communication appearing in this journal ranked UK-based LIS and (some) IR academics by their h-index using data derived from the Thomson ISI Web of Science(TM) (WoS). In this brief communication, the same academics were re-ranked, using other popular citation databases. It was found that for academics who publish more in computer science forums, their h was significantly different due to highly cited papers missed by WoS; consequently, their rank changed substantially. The study was widened to a broader set of UK-based LIS and IR academics in which results showed similar statistically significant differences. A variant of h, hmx, was introduced that allowed a ranking of the academics using all citation databases together.

Object

Web of Science

0.009195855 = product of:
  0.01839171 = sum of:
    0.01839171 = product of:
      0.03678342 = sum of:
        0.03678342 = weight(_text_:web in 1129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03678342 = score(doc=1129,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1129, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1129)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper we present results from an investigation of religious information searching based on analyzing log files from a large general-purpose search engine. From approximately 15 million queries, we identified 124,422 that were part of 60,759 user sessions. We present a method for categorizing queries based on related terms and show differences in search patterns between religious searches and web searching more generally. We also investigate the search patterns found in queries related to 5 religions: Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism. Different search patterns are found to emerge. Results from this study complement existing studies of religious information searching and provide a level of detailed analysis not reported to date. We show, for example, that sessions involving religion-related queries tend to last longer, that the lengths of religion-related queries are greater, and that the number of unique URLs clicked is higher when compared to all queries. The results of the study can serve to provide information on what this large population of users is actually searching for.

0.008823298 = product of:
  0.017646596 = sum of:
    0.017646596 = product of:
      0.03529319 = sum of:
        0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03529319 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1177, 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=1177)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

26. 1.2014 18:48:22