Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.00406575 = product of:
  0.028460251 = sum of:
    0.0104854815 = weight(_text_:information in 8524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0104854815 = score(doc=8524,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 8524, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8524)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=8524,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 8524, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8524)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Examines how techniques in the field of natural language processing can be applied to the analysis of text in information retrieval. State of the art text searching programs cannot distinguish, for example, between occurrences of the sickness, AIDS and aids as tool or between library school and school nor equate such terms as online or on-line which are variants of the same form. To make these distinction, systems must incorporate knowledge about the meaning of words in context. Research in natural language processing has concentrated on the automatic 'understanding' of language; how to analyze the grammatical structure and meaning of text. Although many asoects of this research remain experimental, describes how these techniques to recognize spelling variants, names, acronyms, and abbreviations

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Learned Information

0.001008966 = product of:
  0.014125523 = sum of:
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 4196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=4196,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 4196, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4196)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 45(2011) no.1, S.157-196

8.826613E-4 = product of:
  0.012357258 = sum of:
    0.012357258 = weight(_text_:information in 19) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012357258 = score(doc=19,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 19, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=19)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The goal of this research is to understand what characteristics, if any, lead users engaged in interactive information seeking to prefer certain sets of query terms. Underlying this work is the assumption that query terms that information seekers prefer induce a kind of cognitive efficiency: They require less mental effort to process and therefore reduce the energy required in the interactive information-seeking process. Conceptually, this work applies insights from linguistics and cognitive science to the study of query-term quality. We report on an experiment in which we compare user preference for three sets of terms; one had been preconstructed by a human indexer, and two were identified automatically. Twenty-four participants used a merged list of all terms to answer a carefully created set of questions. By design, the interface constrained users to access the text exclusively via the displayed list of query terms. We found that participants displayed a preference for the human-constructed set of terms eight times greater than the preference for either set of automatically identified terms. We speculate about reasons for this strong preference and discuss the implications for information access. The primary contributions of this research are (a) explication of the concept of user preference as a measure of queryterm quality and (b) identification of a replicable procedure for measuring preference for sets of query terms created by different methods, whether human or automatic. All other factors being equal, query terms that users prefer clearly are the best choice for real-world information-access systems.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.12, S.1566-1580

8.826613E-4 = product of:
  0.012357258 = sum of:
    0.012357258 = weight(_text_:information in 2079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012357258 = score(doc=2079,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 2079, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2079)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This study addresses the question of whether the way in which sets of query terms are identified has an impact on the effectiveness of users' information seeking efforts. Query terms are text strings used as input to an information access system; they are products of a method or grammar that identifies a set of query terms. We conducted an experiment that compared the effectiveness of sets of query terms identified for a single book by three different methods. One had been previously prepared by a human indexer for a back-of-the-book index. The other two were identified by computer programs that used a combination of linguistic and statistical criteria to extract terms from full text. Effectiveness was measured by (1) whether selected query terms led participants to correct answers and (2) how long it took participants to obtain correct answers. Our results show that two sets of terms - the human terms and the set selected according to the linguistically more sophisticated criteria - were significantly more effective than the third set of terms. This single case demonstrates that query languages do have a measurable impact on the effectiveness of query term languages in the interactive information access process. The procedure described in this paper can be used to assess the effectiveness for information seekers of query terms identified by any query language.

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.3, S.1022-1031

6.115257E-4 = product of:
  0.00856136 = sum of:
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=182,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 182, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=182)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The authors report on a series of experiments to automate the assessment of document qualities such as depth and objectivity. The primary purpose is to develop a quality-sensitive functionality, orthogonal to relevance, to select documents for an interactive question-answering system. The study consisted of two stages. In the classifier construction stage, nine document qualities deemed important by information professionals were identified and classifiers were developed to predict their values. In the confirmative evaluation stage, the performance of the developed methods was checked using a different document collection. The quality prediction methods worked well in the second stage. The results strongly suggest that the best way to predict document qualities automatically is to construct classifiers on a person-by-person basis.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.9, S.1155-1164

6.115257E-4 = product of:
  0.00856136 = sum of:
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=332,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 332, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=332)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The purpose of this work is to identify potential evaluation criteria for interactive, analytical question-answering (QA) systems by analyzing evaluative comments made by users of such a system. Qualitative data collected from intelligence analysts during interviews and focus groups were analyzed to identify common themes related to performance, use, and usability. These data were collected as part of an intensive, three-day evaluation workshop of the High-Quality Interactive Question Answering (HITIQA) system. Inductive coding and memoing were used to identify and categorize these data. Results suggest potential evaluation criteria for interactive, analytical QA systems, which can be used to guide the development and design of future systems and evaluations. This work contributes to studies of QA systems, information seeking and use behaviors, and interactive searching.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.7, S.1032-1043

6.115257E-4 = product of:
  0.00856136 = sum of:
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 435) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=435,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 435, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=435)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

We describe a procedure for quantitative evaluation of interactive question-answering systems and illustrate it with application to the High-Quality Interactive QuestionAnswering (HITIQA) system. Our objectives were (a) to design a method to realistically and reliably assess interactive question-answering systems by comparing the quality of reports produced using different systems, (b) to conduct a pilot test of this method, and (c) to perform a formative evaluation of the HITIQA system. Far more important than the specific information gathered from this pilot evaluation is the development of (a) a protocol for evaluating an emerging technology, (b) reusable assessment instruments, and (c) the knowledge gained in conducting the evaluation. We conclude that this method, which uses a surprisingly small number of subjects and does not rely on predetermined relevance judgments, measures the impact of system change on work produced by users. Therefore this method can be used to compare the product of interactive systems that use different underlying technologies.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.8, S.1082-1099

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 5096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=5096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5096, 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=5096)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Information processing and management. 53(2017) no.4, S.851-870

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 3155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=3155,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3155, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3155)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.11, S.2725-2737