Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.006472671 = product of:
  0.045308694 = sum of:
    0.011415146 = weight(_text_:information in 66) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011415146 = score(doc=66,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 66, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=66)
    0.033893548 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 66) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033893548 = score(doc=66,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 66, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=66)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This paper deals with information retrieval from large textual documents. We are particularly interested in the indexing of this kind of document and have concentrated on two issues: partitioning the document into components, and indexing methods to be applied to these components. Several experiments enabled us to study these issues as they relate to the overall document structure

0.0045768693 = product of:
  0.032038085 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 6345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=6345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 6345, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6345)
    0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023966359 = score(doc=6345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 6345, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6345)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Studying users' searching activity and spotting linguistic clues for the textual information retrieval in technical documents

9.6690713E-4 = product of:
  0.013536699 = sum of:
    0.013536699 = weight(_text_:information in 2667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013536699 = score(doc=2667,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 2667, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2667)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This article deals with the representation of knowledge contained in FAQs. Various works showed that it is conceivable to categorise the various information units contained in technical documents according to the type of the information conveyed. Such a model based an various types of information units makes it possible to represent the knowledge contained in technical documents. Besides, this model proposes a method for the automatic recognition of the information units types contained in these documents. This model has been constructed for "traditional" technical documents and it has been validated with expert users of these documents. In this paper, we propose to validate and extend this model to FAQs by an experimental study with a group of users, expert of the technical field described in FAQs.

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=320,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 320, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=320)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This article argues that authorial stance should be taken into account in the indexing of scientific documents. Authorial stance has been widely studied in linguistics and is a typical feature of scientific writing that reveals the uniqueness of each author's perspective, their scientific contribution, and their thinking. We argue that authorial stance guides the reading of scientific documents and that it can be used to characterize the knowledge contained in such documents. Our research has previously shown that people reading dissertations are interested both in a topic and in a document's authorial stance. Now, we would like to propose a two-tiered indexing system. Dissertations would first be divided into paragraphs; then, each information unit would be defined by topic and by the markers of authorial stance present in the document.