Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
Evaluation campaigns and TRECVid
2006824 citationsAlan F. Smeaton, Paul Over et al.profile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Wessel Kraaij's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Wessel Kraaij with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Wessel Kraaij more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Wessel Kraaij. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Wessel Kraaij. The network helps show where Wessel Kraaij may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Wessel Kraaij
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Wessel Kraaij.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Wessel Kraaij based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with Wessel Kraaij. Wessel Kraaij is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Hinne, Max, et al.. (2010). When is a query a question? Reconstructing wh-requests from ad hoc-queries. International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 17–20.
10.
Raaijmakers, Stephan & Wessel Kraaij. (2009). Polarity Classification of Blog TREC 2008 Data with a Geodesic Kernel. TNO Repository.3 indexed citations
11.
Kraaij, Wessel, Arjen P. de Vries, Charles L. A. Clarke, Norbert Fuhr, & Noriko Kando. (2007). Proceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval.2 indexed citations
12.
Schijvenaars, Bob J.A., Martijn J. Schuemie, Erik M. van Mulligen, et al.. (2005). TREC 2005 Genomics Track A Concept-Based Approach to Text Categorization.. Text REtrieval Conference.1 indexed citations
13.
Kraaij, Wessel, et al.. (2004). TRECVID 2004 - an overview. Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology).18 indexed citations
14.
Kraaij, Wessel, Stephan Raaijmakers, Marc Weeber, & Rob Jelier. (2004). MeSH Based Feedback, Concept Recognition and Stacked Classification for Curation Tasks.. Text REtrieval Conference.8 indexed citations
15.
Westerveld, Thijs, Wessel Kraaij, & Djoerd Hiemstra. (2002). Retrieving Web Pages Using Content, Links, URLs and Anchors. University of Twente Research Information. 663–672.85 indexed citations
16.
Hiemstra, Djoerd, et al.. (2000). Twenty-One at CLEF-2000: Translation resources, merging strategies and relevance feedback. CLEF (Working Notes).6 indexed citations
17.
Hiemstra, Djoerd & Wessel Kraaij. (1998). Twenty-One at TREC-7: ad-hoc and cross-language track. University of Twente Research Information. 174–185.103 indexed citations
Kraaij, Wessel & Djoerd Hiemstra. (1997). Cross-Language Retrieval with the Twenty-One System. University of Twente Research Information. 753–760.8 indexed citations
20.
Kraaij, Wessel, et al.. (1995). Evaluation of a Dutch Stemming Algorithm.3 indexed citations
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive
bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global
research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include
incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and
delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in
Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.