Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0424677 = sum of:
  0.019479765 = product of:
    0.07791906 = sum of:
      0.07791906 = weight(_text_:authors in 5047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07791906 = score(doc=5047,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25783125 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056556646 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 5047, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5047)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.022987934 = product of:
    0.045975868 = sum of:
      0.045975868 = weight(_text_:22 in 5047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045975868 = score(doc=5047,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19805174 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056556646 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5047, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5047)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors report on an experimental study on the differences between spoken and written queries. A set of written and spontaneous spoken queries are generated by users from written topics. These two sets of queries are compared in qualitative terms and in terms of their retrieval effectiveness. Written and spoken queries are compared in terms of length, duration, and part of speech. In addition, assuming perfect transcription of the spoken queries, written and spoken queries are compared in terms of their aptitude to describe relevant documents. The retrieval effectiveness of spoken and written queries is compared using three different information retrieval models. The results show that using speech to formulate one's information need provides a way to express it more naturally and encourages the formulation of longer queries. Despite that, longer spoken queries do not seem to significantly improve retrieval effectiveness compared with written queries.

Date

5. 6.2006 11:22:23

0.013927576 = product of:
  0.027855152 = sum of:
    0.027855152 = product of:
      0.055710305 = sum of:
        0.055710305 = weight(_text_:x in 3540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055710305 = score(doc=3540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23882076 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056556646 = queryNorm
            0.23327245 = fieldWeight in 3540, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Opinion mining refers to the use of natural language processing, text analysis, and computational linguistics to identify and extract subjective information in textual material. Opinion mining, also known as sentiment analysis, has received a lot of attention in recent times, as it provides a number of tools to analyze public opinion on a number of different topics. Comparative opinion mining is a subfield of opinion mining which deals with identifying and extracting information that is expressed in a comparative form (e.g., "paper X is better than the Y"). Comparative opinion mining plays a very important role when one tries to evaluate something because it provides a reference point for the comparison. This paper provides a review of the area of comparative opinion mining. It is the first review that cover specifically this topic as all previous reviews dealt mostly with general opinion mining. This survey covers comparative opinion mining from two different angles. One from the perspective of techniques and the other from the perspective of comparative opinion elements. It also incorporates preprocessing tools as well as data set that were used by past researchers that can be useful to future researchers in the field of comparative opinion mining.

0.011493967 = product of:
  0.022987934 = sum of:
    0.022987934 = product of:
      0.045975868 = sum of:
        0.045975868 = weight(_text_:22 in 6967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045975868 = score(doc=6967,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19805174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056556646 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6967, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6967)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon

0.011493967 = product of:
  0.022987934 = sum of:
    0.022987934 = product of:
      0.045975868 = sum of:
        0.045975868 = weight(_text_:22 in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045975868 = score(doc=1451,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19805174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056556646 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1451, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1451)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2003 19:27:36