This paper presents results comparing user preference for search engine rankings with measures of effectiveness computed from a test collection. It establishes that preferences and evaluation measures correlate: systems measured as better on a test collection are preferred by users. This correlation is established for both that emphasizes diverse results. The nDCG and ERR measures were found to correlate best with user preferences compared to a selection of other well known measures. Unlike previous studies in this area, this examination involved a large population of users, gathered through crowd sourcing, exposed to a wide range of retrieval systems, test collections and search tasks. Reasons for user preferences were also gathered and analyzed. The work revealed a number of new results, but also showed that there is much scope for future work refining effectiveness measures to better capture user preferences.
Open‐access mega‐journals (OAMJs) are characterized by their large scale, wide scope, open‐access (OA) business model, and “soundness‐only” peer review. The last of these controversially discounts the novelty, significance, and relevance of submitted articles and assesses only their “soundness.” This article reports the results of an international survey of authors (n = 11,883), comparing the responses of OAMJ authors with those of other OA and subscription journals, and drawing comparisons between different OAMJs. Strikingly, OAMJ authors showed a low understanding of soundness‐only peer review: two‐thirds believed OAMJs took into account novelty, significance, and relevance, although there were marked geographical variations. Author satisfaction with OAMJs, however, was high, with more than 80% of OAMJ authors saying they would publish again in the same journal, although there were variations by title, and levels were slightly lower than subscription journals (over 90%). Their reasons for choosing to publish in OAMJs included a wide variety of factors, not significantly different from reasons given by authors of other journals, with the most important including the quality of the journal and quality of peer review. About half of OAMJ articles had been submitted elsewhere before submission to the OAMJ with some evidence of a “cascade” of articles between journals from the same publisher.
Abstract. This paper investigates graph-based approaches to labeled topic clustering of reader comments in online news. For graph-based clustering we propose a linear regression model of similarity between the graph nodes (comments) based on similarity features and weights trained using automatically derived training data. To label the clusters our graph-based approach makes use of DBPedia to abstract topics extracted from the clusters. We evaluate the clustering approach against gold standard data created by human annotators and compare its results against LDA -currently reported as the best method for the news comment clustering task. Evaluation of cluster labelling is set up as a retrieval task, where human annotators are asked to identify the best cluster given a cluster label. Our clustering approach significantly outperforms the LDA baseline and our evaluation of abstract cluster labels shows that graph-based approaches are a promising method of creating labeled clusters of news comments, although we still find cases where the automatically generated abstractive labels are insufficient to allow humans to correctly associate a label with its cluster.
In this paper we examine user queries with respect to diversity: providing a mix of results across different interpretations. Using two query log analysis techniques (click entropy and reformulated queries), 14.9 million queries from the Microsoft Live Search log were analysed. We found that a broad range of query types may benefit from diversification. Additionally, although there is a correlation between word ambiguity and the need for diversity, the range of results users may wish to see for an ambiguous query stretches well beyond traditional notions of word sense.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.