Advertisement

Cultural Heritage in CLEF (CHiC) 2013

  • Vivien Petras
  • Toine Bogers
  • Elaine Toms
  • Mark Hall
  • Jacques Savoy
  • Piotr Malak
  • Adam Pawłowski
  • Nicola Ferro
  • Ivano Masiero
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8138)

Abstract

The Cultural Heritage in CLEF 2013 lab comprised three tasks: multilingual ad-hoc retrieval and semantic enrichment in 13 languages (Dutch, English, German, Greek, Finnish, French, Hungarian, Italian, Norwegian, Polish, Slovenian, Spanish, and Swedish), Polish ad-hoc retrieval and the interactive task, which studied user behavior via log analysis and questionnaires. For the multilingual and Polish sub-tasks, more than 170,000 documents were assessed for relevance on a tertiary scale. The multilingual task had 7 participants submitting 30 multilingual and 41 monolingual runs. The Polish task comprised 3 participating groups submitting manual and automatic runs. The interactive task had 4 participating research groups and 208 user participants in the study. For the multilingual task, results show that more participants are necessary in order to provide comparative analyses. The interactive task created a rich data set comprising of questionnaire of log data. Further analysis of the data is planned in the future.

Keywords

cultural heritage Europeana ad-hoc retrieval semantic enrichment multilingual retrieval Polish interactive user behavior 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Agosti, M., Ferro, N.: Towards an Evaluation Infrastructure for DL Performance Evaluation. In: Tsakonas, G., Papatheodorou, C. (eds.) Evaluation of Digital Libraries: An Insight to Useful Applications and Methods, pp. 93–120. Chandos Publishing, Oxford (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akasereh, M., Naji, N., Savoy, J.: UniNE at CLEF – CHIC 2013. In: Proceedings CLEF 2013, Working Notes (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amati, G., van Rijsbergen, C.J.: Probabilistic Models of Information Retrieval Based on Measuring the Divergence from Randomness. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 20, 357–389 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dolamic, L., Savoy, J.: Indexing and Stemming Approaches for the Czech Language. Information Processing & Management 45, 714–720 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fernando, S., Hall, M.M., Agirre, E., Soroa, A., Clough, P., Stevenson, M.: Comparing taxonomies for organising collections of documents. In: Proceedings of COLING 2012: Technical Papers, pp. 879–894 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hall, M.M., Toms, E.: Building a common framework for IIR evaluation. In: CLEF 2013. LNCS, vol. 8138, pp. 17–28. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hall, M., Villa, R., Rutter, S., Bell, D., Clough, P., Toms, E.: Sheffield Submission to the CHiC Interactive Task: Exploring Digital Cultural Heritage. In: Proceedings CLEF 2013, Working Notes (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Council of Museums, Scope Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (2003), http://www.cidoc-crm.org/scope.html
  9. 9.
    Larson, R.: Pseudo-Relevance Feedback for CLEF-CHiC Adhoc. In: Proceedings CLEF 2013, Working Notes (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Malak, P.: The Polish Task within Cultural Heritage in CLEF (CHiC) 2013. Torun runs. In: Proceedings CLEF 2013, Working Notes (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Manning, C.D., Raghavan, P., Schütze, H.: Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pawlowski, A.: Polish Monolingual Task within Cultural Heritage in CLEF (CHiC) 2013. Wroclaw Runs. In: Proceedings CLEF 2013, Working Notes (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Petras, V., Ferro, N., Gäde, M., Isaac, A., Kleineberg, M., Masiero, I., Nicchio, M., Stiller, J.: Cultural Heritage in CLEF (CHiC) Overview 2012. In: Proceedings CLEF-2012, Working Paper (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Petras, V., Bogers, T., Ferro, N., Masiero, I.: CHiC Multilingual Task Overview and Analysis. In: Proceedings CLEF 2013, Working Notes (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Popescu, A.: CEA LIST’s participation at the CLEF CHiC 2013. In: Proceedings CLEF 2013, Working Notes (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Robertson, S.E., Walker, S., Beaulieu, M.: Experimentation as a Way of Life: Okapi at TREC. Information Processing & Management 36, 95–108 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Skov, M., Bogers, T., Lund, H., Jensen, M., Wistrup, E., Larsen, B.: RSLIS/AAU at CHiC 2013. In: Proceedings CLEF 2013, Working Notes (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stiller, J., Gäde, M., Petras, V.: Ambiguity of Queries and the Challenges for Query Language Detection. In: CLEF 2010 LABs and Workshops (2010), http://clef2010.org/resources/proceedings/clef2010labs_submission_41.pdf (retrieved)
  19. 19.
    Swan Oscar, E.: Polish Grammar in a Nutshell, http://polish.slavic.pitt.edu/firstyear/nutshell.pdf
  20. 20.
    Tan, K., Almasri, M., Chevallet, J., Mulhem, P., Berrut, C.: Multimedia Information Modeling and Retrieval(MRIM)/Laboratoire d’Informatique de Grenoble (LIG) at CHiC 2013. In: Proceedings CLEF 2013, Working Notes (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tanase, D.: Using the Divergence Framework for Randomness: CHiC 2013 Lab Report. In: Proceedings CLEF 2013, Working Notes (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilhelm-Stein, T., Schürer, B., Eibl, M.: Identifying the most suitable stemmer for the CHiC multilingual ad-hoc task. In: Proceedings CLEF 2013, Working Notes (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vivien Petras
    • 1
  • Toine Bogers
    • 2
  • Elaine Toms
    • 3
  • Mark Hall
    • 3
  • Jacques Savoy
    • 4
  • Piotr Malak
    • 4
  • Adam Pawłowski
    • 5
  • Nicola Ferro
    • 6
  • Ivano Masiero
    • 6
  1. 1.Berlin School of Library and Information ScienceHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Royal School of Library and Information ScienceCopenhagen UniversityCopenhagen SDenmark
  3. 3.The Information SchoolUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  4. 4.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of NeuchatelNeuchatelSwitzerland
  5. 5.Institute of Library and Information ScienceUniversity of WrocławWrocławPoland
  6. 6.Department of Information EngineeringUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations