Search (94 results, page 1 of 5)

0.061869845 = product of:
  0.12373969 = sum of:
    0.12373969 = sum of:
      0.07432922 = weight(_text_:web in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07432922 = score(doc=1319,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 1319, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1319)
      0.049410466 = weight(_text_:22 in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049410466 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1319, 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=1319)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Keyword based querying has been an immediate and efficient way to specify and retrieve related information that the user inquired. However, conventional document ranking based on an automatic assessment of document relevance to the query may not be the best approach when little information is given. Proposes an idea to integrate 2 existing techniques, query expansion and relevance feedback to achieve a concept-based information search for the Web

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

Footnote

Contribution to a special issue devoted to the Proceedings of the 7th International World Wide Web Conference, held 14-18 April 1998, Brisbane, Australia

0.057959333 = product of:
  0.115918666 = sum of:
    0.115918666 = sum of:
      0.07356684 = weight(_text_:web in 2239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07356684 = score(doc=2239,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 2239, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2239)
      0.042351827 = weight(_text_:22 in 2239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042351827 = score(doc=2239,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2239, 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=2239)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Genetic-based evolutionary learning algorithms, such as genetic algorithms (GAs) and genetic programming (GP), have been applied to information retrieval (IR) since the 1980s. Recently, GP has been applied to a new IR taskdiscovery of ranking functions for Web search-and has achieved very promising results. However, in our prior research, only one fitness function has been used for GP-based learning. It is unclear how other fitness functions may affect ranking function discovery for Web search, especially since it is weIl known that choosing a proper fitness function is very important for the effectiveness and efficiency of evolutionary algorithms. In this article, we report our experience in contrasting different fitness function designs an GP-based learning using a very large Web corpus. Our results indicate that the design of fitness functions is instrumental in performance improvement. We also give recommendations an the design of fitness functions for genetic-based information retrieval experiments.

Date

31. 5.2004 19:22:06

0.04028248 = product of:
  0.08056496 = sum of:
    0.08056496 = sum of:
      0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030652853 = score(doc=2591,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2591, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2591)
      0.049912106 = weight(_text_:22 in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049912106 = score(doc=2591,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2591, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2591)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose In a system-based approach, replicating the web would require large test collections, and judging the relevancy of all documents per topic in creating relevance judgment through human assessors is infeasible. Due to the large amount of documents that requires judgment, there are possible errors introduced by human assessors because of disagreements. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach This study explores exponential variation and document ranking methods that generate a reliable set of relevance judgments (pseudo relevance judgments) to reduce human efforts. These methods overcome problems with large amounts of documents for judgment while avoiding human disagreement errors during the judgment process. This study utilizes two key factors: number of occurrences of each document per topic from all the system runs; and document rankings to generate the alternate methods. Findings The effectiveness of the proposed method is evaluated using the correlation coefficient of ranked systems using mean average precision scores between the original Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) relevance judgments and pseudo relevance judgments. The results suggest that the proposed document ranking method with a pool depth of 100 could be a reliable alternative to reduce human effort and disagreement errors involved in generating TREC-like relevance judgments. Originality/value Simple methods proposed in this study show improvement in the correlation coefficient in generating alternate relevance judgment without human assessors while contributing to information retrieval evaluation.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22
18. 9.2018 18:22:56

0.03675148 = product of:
  0.07350296 = sum of:
    0.07350296 = product of:
      0.14700592 = sum of:
        0.14700592 = weight(_text_:web in 6028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14700592 = score(doc=6028,freq=46.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.86461735 = fieldWeight in 6028, product of:
              6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
                46.0 = termFreq=46.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6028)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This research is part of the ongoing study to better understand web page ranking on the web. It looks at a web page as a graph structure or a web graph, and tries to classify different web graphs in the new coordinate space: (out-degree, in-degree). The out-degree coordinate od is defined as the number of outgoing web pages from a given web page. The in-degree id coordinate is the number of web pages that point to a given web page. In this new coordinate space a metric is built to classify how close or far different web graphs are. Google's web ranking algorithm (Brin & Page, 1998) on ranking web pages is applied in this new coordinate space. The results of the algorithm has been modified to fit different topological web graph structures. Also the algorithm was not successful in the case of general web graphs and new ranking web algorithms have to be considered. This study does not look at enhancing web ranking by adding any contextual information. It only considers web links as a source to web page ranking. The author believes that understanding the underlying web page as a graph will help design better ranking web algorithms, enhance retrieval and web performance, and recommends using graphs as a part of visual aid for browsing engine designers

0.033809613 = product of:
  0.06761923 = sum of:
    0.06761923 = sum of:
      0.042913996 = weight(_text_:web in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042913996 = score(doc=2509,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
      0.024705233 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024705233 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Most Web search engines accept natural language queries, perform some kind of fuzzy matching and produce ranked output, displaying first the documents that are most likely to be relevant. On the other hand, most library online public access catalogs (OPACs) an the Web are still Boolean retrieval systems that perform exact matching, and require users to express their search requests precisely in a Boolean search language and to refine their search statements to improve the search results. It is well-documented that users have difficulty searching Boolean OPACs effectively (e.g. Borgman, 1996; Ensor, 1992; Wallace, 1993). One approach to making OPACs easier to use is to develop a natural language search interface that acts as a middleware between the user's Web browser and the OPAC system. The search interface can accept a natural language query from the user and reformulate it as a series of Boolean search statements that are then submitted to the OPAC. The records retrieved by the OPAC are ranked by the search interface before forwarding them to the user's Web browser. The user, then, does not need to interact directly with the Boolean OPAC but with the natural language search interface or search intermediary. The search interface interacts with the OPAC system an the user's behalf. The advantage of this approach is that no modification to the OPAC or library system is required. Furthermore, the search interface can access multiple OPACs, acting as a meta search engine, and integrate search results from various OPACs before sending them to the user. The search interface needs to incorporate a method for converting the user's natural language query into a series of Boolean search statements, and for ranking the OPAC records retrieved. The purpose of this study was to develop a relevancyranking algorithm for a search interface to Boolean OPAC systems. This is part of an on-going effort to develop a knowledge-based search interface to OPACs called the E-Referencer (Khoo et al., 1998, 1999; Poo et al., 2000). E-Referencer v. 2 that has been implemented applies a repertoire of initial search strategies and reformulation strategies to retrieve records from OPACs using the Z39.50 protocol, and also assists users in mapping query keywords to the Library of Congress subject headings."

Source

Electronic library. 22(2004) no.2, S.112-120

0.03297302 = product of:
  0.06594604 = sum of:
    0.06594604 = sum of:
      0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030652853 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
      0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03529319 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = 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)

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

0.028234553 = product of:
  0.056469105 = sum of:
    0.056469105 = product of:
      0.11293821 = sum of:
        0.11293821 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11293821 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.026009807 = product of:
  0.052019615 = sum of:
    0.052019615 = product of:
      0.10403923 = sum of:
        0.10403923 = weight(_text_:web in 674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10403923 = score(doc=674,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 674, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=674)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Introduces several new versions of PageRank (the link based Web page ranking algorithm), based on an information science perspective on the concept of the Web document. Although the Web page is the typical indivisible unit of information in search engine results and most Web information retrieval algorithms, other research has suggested that aggregating pages based on directories and domains gives promising alternatives, particularly when Web links are the object of study. The new algorithms introduced based on these alternatives were used to rank four sets of Web pages. The ranking results were compared with human subjects' rankings. The results of the tests were somewhat inconclusive: the new approach worked well for the set that includes pages from different Web sites; however, it does not work well in ranking pages that are from the same site. It seems that the new algorithms may be effective for some tasks but not for others, especially when only low numbers of links are involved or the pages to be ranked are from the same site or directory.

0.024705233 = product of:
  0.049410466 = sum of:
    0.049410466 = product of:
      0.09882093 = sum of:
        0.09882093 = weight(_text_:22 in 2134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09882093 = score(doc=2134,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 3.2001 13:32:22

0.024705233 = product of:
  0.049410466 = sum of:
    0.049410466 = product of:
      0.09882093 = sum of:
        0.09882093 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09882093 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

25. 8.2005 17:42:22

0.022104086 = product of:
  0.044208173 = sum of:
    0.044208173 = product of:
      0.088416345 = sum of:
        0.088416345 = weight(_text_:web in 8) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.088416345 = score(doc=8,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.520022 = fieldWeight in 8, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=8)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Hyperlink analysis algorithms allow search engines to deliver focused results to user queries.This article surveys ranking algorithms used to retrieve information on the Web.

Content

Information retrieval is a computer science subfield whose goal is to find all documents relevant to a user query in a given collection of documents. As such, information retrieval should really be called document retrieval. Before the advent of the Web, IR systems were typically installed in libraries for use mostly by reference librarians. The retrieval algorithm for these systems was usually based exclusively on analysis of the words in the document. The Web changed all this. Now each Web user has access to various search engines whose retrieval algorithms often use not only the words in the documents but also information like the hyperlink structure of the Web or markup language tags. How are hyperlinks useful? The hyperlink functionality alone-that is, the hyperlink to Web page B that is contained in Web page A-is not directly useful in information retrieval. However, the way Web page authors use hyperlinks can give them valuable information content. Authors usually create hyperlinks they think will be useful to readers. Some may be navigational aids that, for example, take the reader back to the site's home page; others provide access to documents that augment the content of the current page. The latter tend to point to highquality pages that might be on the same topic as the page containing the hyperlink. Web information retrieval systems can exploit this information to refine searches for relevant documents. Hyperlink analysis significantly improves the relevance of the search results, so much so that all major Web search engines claim to use some type of hyperlink analysis. However, the search engines do not disclose details about the type of hyperlink analysis they perform- mostly to avoid manipulation of search results by Web-positioning companies. In this article, I discuss how hyperlink analysis can be applied to ranking algorithms, and survey other ways Web search engines can use this analysis.

0.02167484 = product of:
  0.04334968 = sum of:
    0.04334968 = product of:
      0.08669936 = sum of:
        0.08669936 = weight(_text_:web in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08669936 = score(doc=2069,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The semantic web not only contains resources but also includes the heterogeneous relationships among them, which is sharply distinguished from the current web. As the growth of the semantic web, specialized search techniques are of significance. In this paper, we present RSS-a framework for enabling ranked semantic search on the semantic web. In this framework, the heterogeneity of relationships is fully exploited to determine the global importance of resources. In addition, the search results can be greatly expanded with entities most semantically related to the query, thus able to provide users with properly ordered semantic search results by combining global ranking values and the relevance between the resources and the query. The proposed semantic search model which supports inference is very different from traditional keyword-based search methods. Moreover, RSS also distinguishes from many current methods of accessing the semantic web data in that it applies novel ranking strategies to prevent returning search results in disorder. The experimental results show that the framework is feasible and can produce better ordering of semantic search results than directly applying the standard PageRank algorithm on the semantic web.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.021456998 = product of:
  0.042913996 = sum of:
    0.042913996 = product of:
      0.08582799 = sum of:
        0.08582799 = weight(_text_:web in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08582799 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 3662, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3662)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.021456998 = product of:
  0.042913996 = sum of:
    0.042913996 = product of:
      0.08582799 = sum of:
        0.08582799 = weight(_text_:web in 6248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08582799 = score(doc=6248,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 6248, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6248)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.021456998 = product of:
  0.042913996 = sum of:
    0.042913996 = product of:
      0.08582799 = sum of:
        0.08582799 = weight(_text_:web in 2068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08582799 = score(doc=2068,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 2068, 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=2068)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A fast and efficient page ranking mechanism for web crawling and retrieval remains as a challenging issue. Recently, several link based ranking algorithms like PageRank, HITS and OPIC have been proposed. In this paper, we propose a novel recursive method based on reinforcement learning which considers distance between pages as punishment, called "DistanceRank" to compute ranks of web pages. The distance is defined as the number of "average clicks" between two pages. The objective is to minimize punishment or distance so that a page with less distance to have a higher rank. Experimental results indicate that DistanceRank outperforms other ranking algorithms in page ranking and crawling scheduling. Furthermore, the complexity of DistanceRank is low. We have used University of California at Berkeley's web for our experiments.

0.021175914 = product of:
  0.042351827 = sum of:
    0.042351827 = product of:
      0.084703654 = sum of:
        0.084703654 = weight(_text_:22 in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084703654 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 6.2015 22:12:44

0.021175914 = product of:
  0.042351827 = sum of:
    0.042351827 = product of:
      0.084703654 = sum of:
        0.084703654 = weight(_text_:22 in 2051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084703654 = score(doc=2051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2051, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 6.2015 22:12:56

0.02056256 = product of:
  0.04112512 = sum of:
    0.04112512 = product of:
      0.08225024 = sum of:
        0.08225024 = weight(_text_:web in 4457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08225024 = score(doc=4457,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.48375595 = fieldWeight in 4457, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4457)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.019386567 = product of:
  0.038773134 = sum of:
    0.038773134 = product of:
      0.07754627 = sum of:
        0.07754627 = weight(_text_:web in 801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07754627 = score(doc=801,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.45608947 = fieldWeight in 801, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=801)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The analysis of the hyperlink structure of the web has led to significant improvements in web information retrieval. This survey describes two successful link analysis algorithms and the state-of-the art of the field.

Content

The goal of information retrieval is to find all documents relevant for a user query in a collection of documents. Decades of research in information retrieval were successful in developing and refining techniques that are solely word-based (see e.g., [2]). With the advent of the web new sources of information became available, one of them being the hyperlinks between documents and records of user behavior. To be precise, hypertexts (i.e., collections of documents connected by hyperlinks) have existed and have been studied for a long time. What was new was the large number of hyperlinks created by independent individuals. Hyperlinks provide a valuable source of information for web information retrieval as we will show in this article. This area of information retrieval is commonly called link analysis. Why would one expect hyperlinks to be useful? Ahyperlink is a reference of a web page B that is contained in a web page A. When the hyperlink is clicked on in a web browser, the browser displays page B. This functionality alone is not helpful for web information retrieval. However, the way hyperlinks are typically used by authors of web pages can give them valuable information content. Typically, authors create links because they think they will be useful for the readers of the pages. Thus, links are usually either navigational aids that, for example, bring the reader back to the homepage of the site, or links that point to pages whose content augments the content of the current page. The second kind of links tend to point to high-quality pages that might be on the same topic as the page containing the link.

0.01839171 = product of:
  0.03678342 = sum of:
    0.03678342 = product of:
      0.07356684 = sum of:
        0.07356684 = weight(_text_:web in 314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07356684 = score(doc=314,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 314, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=314)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)