图书馆目录中作者排名的影响

J. Kamps
{"title":"图书馆目录中作者排名的影响","authors":"J. Kamps","doi":"10.1145/2064058.2064067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The field of information retrieval has witnessed over 50 years of research on retrieval methods for metadata descriptions and controlled indexing languages, the prototypical example being the library catalogue. It seems only natural to resort to additional data for improving book retrieval, such as the text of the book in whole or in part (table of contents, abstract) or contributed social data acquired through crowdsourcing social cataloguing sites like LibraryThing. Without denying the potential value of such additional data, we want to challenge the underlying assumption that applying novel retrieval methods to traditional book descriptions cannot improve book retrieval. Specifically, this paper investigates the effectiveness of author rankings in a library catalogue. We show that a standard retrieval model results in a book ranking that meets and exceeds the effectiveness of catalogue systems. We show that using expert finding methods we also can obtain effective author rankings that complement the traditional book rankings. Moreover, ranking books on author scores leads to substantial and significant improvements over the original book rankings. If we base our book ranking on the combination of the author scores and the book scores we see no further improvements. Hence our results clearly demonstrate the importance of author ranking for retrieving library catalogue records: authors capture an important aspect of relevance and one that is not obvious to those unfamiliar with specific area of interest.","PeriodicalId":258166,"journal":{"name":"Workshop on Research Advances in Large Digital Book Repositories","volume":"384 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of author ranking in a library catalogue\",\"authors\":\"J. Kamps\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2064058.2064067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The field of information retrieval has witnessed over 50 years of research on retrieval methods for metadata descriptions and controlled indexing languages, the prototypical example being the library catalogue. It seems only natural to resort to additional data for improving book retrieval, such as the text of the book in whole or in part (table of contents, abstract) or contributed social data acquired through crowdsourcing social cataloguing sites like LibraryThing. Without denying the potential value of such additional data, we want to challenge the underlying assumption that applying novel retrieval methods to traditional book descriptions cannot improve book retrieval. Specifically, this paper investigates the effectiveness of author rankings in a library catalogue. We show that a standard retrieval model results in a book ranking that meets and exceeds the effectiveness of catalogue systems. We show that using expert finding methods we also can obtain effective author rankings that complement the traditional book rankings. Moreover, ranking books on author scores leads to substantial and significant improvements over the original book rankings. If we base our book ranking on the combination of the author scores and the book scores we see no further improvements. Hence our results clearly demonstrate the importance of author ranking for retrieving library catalogue records: authors capture an important aspect of relevance and one that is not obvious to those unfamiliar with specific area of interest.\",\"PeriodicalId\":258166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Workshop on Research Advances in Large Digital Book Repositories\",\"volume\":\"384 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Workshop on Research Advances in Large Digital Book Repositories\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2064058.2064067\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Workshop on Research Advances in Large Digital Book Repositories","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2064058.2064067","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

信息检索领域对元数据描述的检索方法和控制索引语言的研究已经有50多年的历史了,典型的例子是图书馆目录。为了改进图书检索,诉诸额外的数据似乎是很自然的,比如图书的全部或部分文本(目录、摘要),或者通过像LibraryThing这样的众包社交编目网站获得的社会贡献数据。在不否认这些额外数据的潜在价值的情况下,我们想挑战一种潜在的假设,即将新颖的检索方法应用于传统的图书描述不能改善图书检索。具体而言,本文研究了图书馆目录中作者排名的有效性。我们表明,一个标准的检索模型的结果在图书排名达到并超过目录系统的有效性。我们表明,使用专家搜索方法,我们也可以获得有效的作者排名,以补充传统的图书排名。此外,根据作者分数对书籍进行排名,比原始书籍排名有了实质性和显著的改进。如果我们根据作者分数和图书分数的组合来对图书进行排名,我们看不到进一步的改进。因此,我们的结果清楚地证明了作者排名对于检索图书馆目录记录的重要性:作者捕获了相关性的一个重要方面,而对于那些不熟悉特定兴趣领域的人来说,这一点并不明显。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The impact of author ranking in a library catalogue
The field of information retrieval has witnessed over 50 years of research on retrieval methods for metadata descriptions and controlled indexing languages, the prototypical example being the library catalogue. It seems only natural to resort to additional data for improving book retrieval, such as the text of the book in whole or in part (table of contents, abstract) or contributed social data acquired through crowdsourcing social cataloguing sites like LibraryThing. Without denying the potential value of such additional data, we want to challenge the underlying assumption that applying novel retrieval methods to traditional book descriptions cannot improve book retrieval. Specifically, this paper investigates the effectiveness of author rankings in a library catalogue. We show that a standard retrieval model results in a book ranking that meets and exceeds the effectiveness of catalogue systems. We show that using expert finding methods we also can obtain effective author rankings that complement the traditional book rankings. Moreover, ranking books on author scores leads to substantial and significant improvements over the original book rankings. If we base our book ranking on the combination of the author scores and the book scores we see no further improvements. Hence our results clearly demonstrate the importance of author ranking for retrieving library catalogue records: authors capture an important aspect of relevance and one that is not obvious to those unfamiliar with specific area of interest.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信