Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Gijs van Dinther

dblp:23/3017 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2005
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Information retrieval
query formulation
0.112005
Live visual relevance feedback for query formulation · SIGIR 2005
Information retrieval
query processing
0.112005
Live visual relevance feedback for query formulation · SIGIR 2005
Information retrieval › interactive information retrieval
user interface design and tools
0.112005
Live visual relevance feedback for query formulation · SIGIR 2005
Information retrieval › search interfaces
visual query interface
0.112005
Live visual relevance feedback for query formulation · SIGIR 2005
Information retrieval
retrieval models
0.012005
Live visual relevance feedback for query formulation · SIGIR 2005

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

visual relevance feedback · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2005 Live visual relevance feedback for query formulation
abstract
Users browsing the Internet seem relatively satisfied with the performance of search engines. An optimistic explanation would be the high quality of search engines. A more pessimistic one would be that people just adapt easily to any new technology. A third explanation is people's ignorance about recall: as they simply don't know what relevant documents are missed, they can hardly be expected to worry about them. And so they easily conceive the result as the best they can get. To allow the user to better assess the quality of the search results, an algorithm was developed that computes a visual representation of the document space in the neighborhood of the user's query.The paper (1) outlines the algorithm, (2) shows how users can explore the neighborhood of a query, and (3) demonstrates how users can guess more judiciously whether they need to further elaborate their query to improve retrieval results.
Eduard Hoenkamp, Gijs van Dinther
SIGIR2