Search (339 results, page 1 of 17)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Computerlinguistik"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Hotho, A.; Bloehdorn, S.: Data Mining 2004 : Text classification by boosting weak learners based on terms and concepts (2004) 0.32
    0.32040247 = product of:
      0.64080495 = sum of:
        0.047065612 = product of:
          0.14119683 = sum of:
            0.14119683 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.14119683 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.25123185 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.029633347 = queryNorm
                0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
        0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020922182 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
        0.14119683 = weight(_text_:2f in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14119683 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25123185 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
        0.14119683 = weight(_text_:2f in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14119683 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25123185 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
        0.14119683 = weight(_text_:2f in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14119683 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25123185 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
        0.14119683 = weight(_text_:2f in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14119683 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25123185 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
        0.008029819 = product of:
          0.024089456 = sum of:
            0.024089456 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024089456 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.029633347 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.5 = coord(7/14)
    
    Content
    Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.
    Date
    8. 1.2013 10:22:32
  2. Noever, D.; Ciolino, M.: ¬The Turing deception (2022) 0.22
    0.21851891 = product of:
      0.61185294 = sum of:
        0.047065612 = product of:
          0.14119683 = sum of:
            0.14119683 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.14119683 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.25123185 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.029633347 = queryNorm
                0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
        0.14119683 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14119683 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25123185 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
        0.14119683 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14119683 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25123185 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
        0.14119683 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14119683 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25123185 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
        0.14119683 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14119683 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25123185 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.35714287 = coord(5/14)
    
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN
  3. Symonds, M.; Bruza, P.; Zuccon, G.; Koopman, B.; Sitbon, L.; Turner, I.: Automatic query expansion : a structural linguistic perspective (2014) 0.03
    0.027869733 = product of:
      0.09754406 = sum of:
        0.032137483 = weight(_text_:wide in 1338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032137483 = score(doc=1338,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 1338, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1338)
        0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 1338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017435152 = score(doc=1338,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1338, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1338)
        0.011280581 = weight(_text_:information in 1338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011280581 = score(doc=1338,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 1338, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1338)
        0.036690846 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036690846 = score(doc=1338,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.40932083 = fieldWeight in 1338, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1338)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    A user's query is considered to be an imprecise description of their information need. Automatic query expansion is the process of reformulating the original query with the goal of improving retrieval effectiveness. Many successful query expansion techniques model syntagmatic associations that infer two terms co-occur more often than by chance in natural language. However, structural linguistics relies on both syntagmatic and paradigmatic associations to deduce the meaning of a word. Given the success of dependency-based approaches to query expansion and the reliance on word meanings in the query formulation process, we argue that modeling both syntagmatic and paradigmatic information in the query expansion process improves retrieval effectiveness. This article develops and evaluates a new query expansion technique that is based on a formal, corpus-based model of word meaning that models syntagmatic and paradigmatic associations. We demonstrate that when sufficient statistical information exists, as in the case of longer queries, including paradigmatic information alone provides significant improvements in retrieval effectiveness across a wide variety of data sets. More generally, when our new query expansion approach is applied to large-scale web retrieval it demonstrates significant improvements in retrieval effectiveness over a strong baseline system, based on a commercial search engine.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.8, S.1577-1596
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  4. Yang, C.C.; Luk, J.: Automatic generation of English/Chinese thesaurus based on a parallel corpus in laws (2003) 0.03
    0.027095389 = product of:
      0.07586709 = sum of:
        0.022496238 = weight(_text_:wide in 1616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022496238 = score(doc=1616,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.171337 = fieldWeight in 1616, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1616)
        0.024409214 = weight(_text_:web in 1616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024409214 = score(doc=1616,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1616, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1616)
        0.006116531 = weight(_text_:information in 1616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006116531 = score(doc=1616,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.11757882 = fieldWeight in 1616, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1616)
        0.018161042 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018161042 = score(doc=1616,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.20260347 = fieldWeight in 1616, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1616)
        0.0046840613 = product of:
          0.014052183 = sum of:
            0.014052183 = weight(_text_:22 in 1616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.014052183 = score(doc=1616,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.029633347 = queryNorm
                0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1616, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1616)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.35714287 = coord(5/14)
    
    Abstract
    The information available in languages other than English in the World Wide Web is increasing significantly. According to a report from Computer Economics in 1999, 54% of Internet users are English speakers ("English Will Dominate Web for Only Three More Years," Computer Economics, July 9, 1999, http://www.computereconomics. com/new4/pr/pr990610.html). However, it is predicted that there will be only 60% increase in Internet users among English speakers verses a 150% growth among nonEnglish speakers for the next five years. By 2005, 57% of Internet users will be non-English speakers. A report by CNN.com in 2000 showed that the number of Internet users in China had been increased from 8.9 million to 16.9 million from January to June in 2000 ("Report: China Internet users double to 17 million," CNN.com, July, 2000, http://cnn.org/2000/TECH/computing/07/27/ china.internet.reut/index.html). According to Nielsen/ NetRatings, there was a dramatic leap from 22.5 millions to 56.6 millions Internet users from 2001 to 2002. China had become the second largest global at-home Internet population in 2002 (US's Internet population was 166 millions) (Robyn Greenspan, "China Pulls Ahead of Japan," Internet.com, April 22, 2002, http://cyberatias.internet.com/big-picture/geographics/article/0,,5911_1013841,00. html). All of the evidences reveal the importance of crosslingual research to satisfy the needs in the near future. Digital library research has been focusing in structural and semantic interoperability in the past. Searching and retrieving objects across variations in protocols, formats and disciplines are widely explored (Schatz, B., & Chen, H. (1999). Digital libraries: technological advances and social impacts. IEEE Computer, Special Issue an Digital Libraries, February, 32(2), 45-50.; Chen, H., Yen, J., & Yang, C.C. (1999). International activities: development of Asian digital libraries. IEEE Computer, Special Issue an Digital Libraries, 32(2), 48-49.). However, research in crossing language boundaries, especially across European languages and Oriental languages, is still in the initial stage. In this proposal, we put our focus an cross-lingual semantic interoperability by developing automatic generation of a cross-lingual thesaurus based an English/Chinese parallel corpus. When the searchers encounter retrieval problems, Professional librarians usually consult the thesaurus to identify other relevant vocabularies. In the problem of searching across language boundaries, a cross-lingual thesaurus, which is generated by co-occurrence analysis and Hopfield network, can be used to generate additional semantically relevant terms that cannot be obtained from dictionary. In particular, the automatically generated cross-lingual thesaurus is able to capture the unknown words that do not exist in a dictionary, such as names of persons, organizations, and events. Due to Hong Kong's unique history background, both English and Chinese are used as official languages in all legal documents. Therefore, English/Chinese cross-lingual information retrieval is critical for applications in courts and the government. In this paper, we develop an automatic thesaurus by the Hopfield network based an a parallel corpus collected from the Web site of the Department of Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government. Experiments are conducted to measure the precision and recall of the automatic generated English/Chinese thesaurus. The result Shows that such thesaurus is a promising tool to retrieve relevant terms, especially in the language that is not the same as the input term. The direct translation of the input term can also be retrieved in most of the cases.
    Footnote
    Teil eines Themenheftes: "Web retrieval and mining: A machine learning perspective"
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.7, S.671-682
  5. Chowdhury, G.G.: Natural language processing (2002) 0.03
    0.025127836 = product of:
      0.08794742 = sum of:
        0.03856498 = weight(_text_:wide in 4284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03856498 = score(doc=4284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 4284, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4284)
        0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 4284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020922182 = score(doc=4284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4284, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4284)
        0.0104854815 = weight(_text_:information in 4284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0104854815 = score(doc=4284,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 4284, 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=4284)
        0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01797477 = score(doc=4284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4284, 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=4284)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    Natural Language Processing (NLP) is an area of research and application that explores how computers can be used to understand and manipulate natural language text or speech to do useful things. NLP researchers aim to gather knowledge an how human beings understand and use language so that appropriate tools and techniques can be developed to make computer systems understand and manipulate natural languages to perform desired tasks. The foundations of NLP lie in a number of disciplines, namely, computer and information sciences, linguistics, mathematics, electrical and electronic engineering, artificial intelligence and robotics, and psychology. Applications of NLP include a number of fields of study, such as machine translation, natural language text processing and summarization, user interfaces, multilingual and cross-language information retrieval (CLIR), speech recognition, artificial intelligence, and expert systems. One important application area that is relatively new and has not been covered in previous ARIST chapters an NLP relates to the proliferation of the World Wide Web and digital libraries.
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 37(2003), S.51-90
  6. Kreymer, O.: ¬An evaluation of help mechanisms in natural language information retrieval systems (2002) 0.02
    0.020308848 = product of:
      0.094774626 = sum of:
        0.03856498 = weight(_text_:wide in 2557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03856498 = score(doc=2557,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 2557, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2557)
        0.016016837 = weight(_text_:information in 2557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016016837 = score(doc=2557,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.3078936 = fieldWeight in 2557, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2557)
        0.04019281 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04019281 = score(doc=2557,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 2557, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2557)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    The field of natural language processing (NLP) demonstrates rapid changes in the design of information retrieval systems and human-computer interaction. While natural language is being looked on as the most effective tool for information retrieval in a contemporary information environment, the systems using it are only beginning to emerge. This study attempts to evaluate the current state of NLP information retrieval systems from the user's point of view: what techniques are used by these systems to guide their users through the search process? The analysis focused on the structure and components of the systems' help mechanisms. Results of the study demonstrated that systems which claimed to be using natural language searching in fact used a wide range of information retrieval techniques from real natural language processing to Boolean searching. As a result, the user assistance mechanisms of these systems also varied. While pseudo-NLP systems would suit a more traditional method of instruction, real NLP systems primarily utilised the methods of explanation and user-system dialogue.
    Source
    Online information review. 26(2002) no.1, S.30-39
  7. Doszkocs, T.E.; Zamora, A.: Dictionary services and spelling aids for Web searching (2004) 0.02
    0.019422783 = product of:
      0.06797974 = sum of:
        0.03019857 = weight(_text_:web in 2541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03019857 = score(doc=2541,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2541, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2541)
        0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 2541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071344664 = score(doc=2541,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2541, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2541)
        0.021183468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021183468 = score(doc=2541,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 2541, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2541)
        0.009463232 = product of:
          0.028389696 = sum of:
            0.028389696 = weight(_text_:22 in 2541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.028389696 = score(doc=2541,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.029633347 = queryNorm
                0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2541, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2541)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    The Specialized Information Services Division (SIS) of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) provides Web access to more than a dozen scientific databases on toxicology and the environment on TOXNET . Search queries on TOXNET often include misspelled or variant English words, medical and scientific jargon and chemical names. Following the example of search engines like Google and ClinicalTrials.gov, we set out to develop a spelling "suggestion" system for increased recall and precision in TOXNET searching. This paper describes development of dictionary technology that can be used in a variety of applications such as orthographic verification, writing aid, natural language processing, and information storage and retrieval. The design of the technology allows building complex applications using the components developed in the earlier phases of the work in a modular fashion without extensive rewriting of computer code. Since many of the potential applications envisioned for this work have on-line or web-based interfaces, the dictionaries and other computer components must have fast response, and must be adaptable to open-ended database vocabularies, including chemical nomenclature. The dictionary vocabulary for this work was derived from SIS and other databases and specialized resources, such as NLM's Unified Medical Language Systems (UMLS) . The resulting technology, A-Z Dictionary (AZdict), has three major constituents: 1) the vocabulary list, 2) the word attributes that define part of speech and morphological relationships between words in the list, and 3) a set of programs that implements the retrieval of words and their attributes, and determines similarity between words (ChemSpell). These three components can be used in various applications such as spelling verification, spelling aid, part-of-speech tagging, paraphrasing, and many other natural language processing functions.
    Date
    14. 8.2004 17:22:56
    Source
    Online. 28(2004) no.3, S.22-29
  8. Bian, G.-W.; Chen, H.-H.: Cross-language information access to multilingual collections on the Internet (2000) 0.02
    0.018879574 = product of:
      0.06607851 = sum of:
        0.029588435 = weight(_text_:web in 4436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029588435 = score(doc=4436,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 4436, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4436)
        0.0104854815 = weight(_text_:information in 4436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0104854815 = score(doc=4436,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 4436, 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=4436)
        0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01797477 = score(doc=4436,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4436, 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=4436)
        0.008029819 = product of:
          0.024089456 = sum of:
            0.024089456 = weight(_text_:22 in 4436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024089456 = score(doc=4436,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.029633347 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4436, 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=4436)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    Language barrier is the major problem that people face in searching for, retrieving, and understanding multilingual collections on the Internet. This paper deals with query translation and document translation in a Chinese-English information retrieval system called MTIR. Bilingual dictionary and monolingual corpus-based approaches are adopted to select suitable tranlated query terms. A machine transliteration algorithm is introduced to resolve proper name searching. We consider several design issues for document translation, including which material is translated, what roles the HTML tags play in translation, what the tradeoff is between the speed performance and the translation performance, and what from the translated result is presented in. About 100.000 Web pages translated in the last 4 months of 1997 are used for quantitative study of online and real-time Web page translation
    Date
    16. 2.2000 14:22:39
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.3, S.281-296
  9. Yang, C.C.; Li, K.W.: Automatic construction of English/Chinese parallel corpora (2003) 0.02
    0.018479032 = product of:
      0.06467661 = sum of:
        0.025709987 = weight(_text_:wide in 1683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025709987 = score(doc=1683,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 1683, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1683)
        0.013948122 = weight(_text_:web in 1683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013948122 = score(doc=1683,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 1683, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1683)
        0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 1683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008071727 = score(doc=1683,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1683, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1683)
        0.016946774 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016946774 = score(doc=1683,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 1683, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1683)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    As the demand for global information increases significantly, multilingual corpora has become a valuable linguistic resource for applications to cross-lingual information retrieval and natural language processing. In order to cross the boundaries that exist between different languages, dictionaries are the most typical tools. However, the general-purpose dictionary is less sensitive in both genre and domain. It is also impractical to manually construct tailored bilingual dictionaries or sophisticated multilingual thesauri for large applications. Corpusbased approaches, which do not have the limitation of dictionaries, provide a statistical translation model with which to cross the language boundary. There are many domain-specific parallel or comparable corpora that are employed in machine translation and cross-lingual information retrieval. Most of these are corpora between Indo-European languages, such as English/French and English/Spanish. The Asian/Indo-European corpus, especially English/Chinese corpus, is relatively sparse. The objective of the present research is to construct English/ Chinese parallel corpus automatically from the World Wide Web. In this paper, an alignment method is presented which is based an dynamic programming to identify the one-to-one Chinese and English title pairs. The method includes alignment at title level, word level and character level. The longest common subsequence (LCS) is applied to find the most reliabie Chinese translation of an English word. As one word for a language may translate into two or more words repetitively in another language, the edit operation, deletion, is used to resolve redundancy. A score function is then proposed to determine the optimal title pairs. Experiments have been conducted to investigate the performance of the proposed method using the daily press release articles by the Hong Kong SAR government as the test bed. The precision of the result is 0.998 while the recall is 0.806. The release articles and speech articles, published by Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, are also used to test our method, the precision is 1.00, and the recall is 0.948.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.8, S.730-742
  10. Li, Q.; Chen, Y.P.; Myaeng, S.-H.; Jin, Y.; Kang, B.-Y.: Concept unification of terms in different languages via web mining for Information Retrieval (2009) 0.02
    0.017982516 = product of:
      0.08391841 = sum of:
        0.034870304 = weight(_text_:web in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034870304 = score(doc=4215,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 4215, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4215)
        0.012357258 = weight(_text_:information in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012357258 = score(doc=4215,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
        0.036690846 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036690846 = score(doc=4215,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.40932083 = fieldWeight in 4215, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4215)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    For historical and cultural reasons, English phrases, especially proper nouns and new words, frequently appear in Web pages written primarily in East Asian languages such as Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. Although such English terms and their equivalences in these East Asian languages refer to the same concept, they are often erroneously treated as independent index units in traditional Information Retrieval (IR). This paper describes the degree to which the problem arises in IR and proposes a novel technique to solve it. Our method first extracts English terms from native Web documents in an East Asian language, and then unifies the extracted terms and their equivalences in the native language as one index unit. For Cross-Language Information Retrieval (CLIR), one of the major hindrances to achieving retrieval performance at the level of Mono-Lingual Information Retrieval (MLIR) is the translation of terms in search queries which can not be found in a bilingual dictionary. The Web mining approach proposed in this paper for concept unification of terms in different languages can also be applied to solve this well-known challenge in CLIR. Experimental results based on NTCIR and KT-Set test collections show that the high translation precision of our approach greatly improves performance of both Mono-Lingual and Cross-Language Information Retrieval.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 45(2009) no.2, S.246-262
  11. Thelwall, M.; Price, L.: Language evolution and the spread of ideas on the Web : a procedure for identifying emergent hybrid word (2006) 0.02
    0.017326513 = product of:
      0.08085706 = sum of:
        0.03856498 = weight(_text_:wide in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03856498 = score(doc=5896,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
        0.036238287 = weight(_text_:web in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036238287 = score(doc=5896,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
        0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060537956 = score(doc=5896,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5896, 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=5896)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Word usage is of interest to linguists for its own sake as well as to social scientists and others who seek to track the spread of ideas, for example, in public debates over political decisions. The historical evolution of language can be analyzed with the tools of corpus linguistics through evolving corpora and the Web. But word usage statistics can only be gathered for known words. In this article, techniques are described and tested for identifying new words from the Web, focusing on the case when the words are related to a topic and have a hybrid form with a common sequence of letters. The results highlight the need to employ a combination of search techniques and show the wide potential of hybrid word family investigations in linguistics and social science.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.10, S.1326-1337
  12. Airio, E.: Who benefits from CLIR in web retrieval? (2008) 0.02
    0.017303396 = product of:
      0.080749184 = sum of:
        0.036238287 = weight(_text_:web in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036238287 = score(doc=2342,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 2342, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2342)
        0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00856136 = score(doc=2342,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2342, 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=2342)
        0.03594954 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03594954 = score(doc=2342,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 2342, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2342)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The aim of the current paper is to test whether query translation is beneficial in web retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - The language pairs were Finnish-Swedish, English-German and Finnish-French. A total of 12-18 participants were recruited for each language pair. Each participant performed four retrieval tasks. The author's aim was to compare the performance of the translated queries with that of the target language queries. Thus, the author asked participants to formulate a source language query and a target language query for each task. The source language queries were translated into the target language utilizing a dictionary-based system. In English-German, also machine translation was utilized. The author used Google as the search engine. Findings - The results differed depending on the language pair. The author concluded that the dictionary coverage had an effect on the results. On average, the results of query-translation were better than in the traditional laboratory tests. Originality/value - This research shows that query translation in web is beneficial especially for users with moderate and non-active language skills. This is valuable information for developers of cross-language information retrieval systems.
  13. Galvez, C.; Moya-Anegón, F. de; Solana, V.H.: Term conflation methods in information retrieval : non-linguistic and linguistic approaches (2005) 0.02
    0.015545678 = product of:
      0.0725465 = sum of:
        0.03856498 = weight(_text_:wide in 4394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03856498 = score(doc=4394,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 4394, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4394)
        0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 4394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00856136 = score(doc=4394,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4394, 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=4394)
        0.025420163 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025420163 = score(doc=4394,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 4394, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4394)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - To propose a categorization of the different conflation procedures at the two basic approaches, non-linguistic and linguistic techniques, and to justify the application of normalization methods within the framework of linguistic techniques. Design/methodology/approach - Presents a range of term conflation methods, that can be used in information retrieval. The uniterm and multiterm variants can be considered equivalent units for the purposes of automatic indexing. Stemming algorithms, segmentation rules, association measures and clustering techniques are well evaluated non-linguistic methods, and experiments with these techniques show a wide variety of results. Alternatively, the lemmatisation and the use of syntactic pattern-matching, through equivalence relations represented in finite-state transducers (FST), are emerging methods for the recognition and standardization of terms. Findings - The survey attempts to point out the positive and negative effects of the linguistic approach and its potential as a term conflation method. Originality/value - Outlines the importance of FSTs for the normalization of term variants.
  14. Byrne, C.C.; McCracken, S.A.: ¬An adaptive thesaurus employing semantic distance, relational inheritance and nominal compound interpretation for linguistic support of information retrieval (1999) 0.01
    0.014813978 = product of:
      0.069131896 = sum of:
        0.01712272 = weight(_text_:information in 4483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01712272 = score(doc=4483,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 4483, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4483)
        0.03594954 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03594954 = score(doc=4483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 4483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4483)
        0.016059637 = product of:
          0.04817891 = sum of:
            0.04817891 = weight(_text_:22 in 4483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04817891 = score(doc=4483,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.029633347 = queryNorm
                0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4483, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4483)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Date
    15. 3.2000 10:22:37
    Source
    Journal of information science. 25(1999) no.2, S.113-131
  15. Wang, F.L.; Yang, C.C.: Mining Web data for Chinese segmentation (2007) 0.01
    0.014765905 = product of:
      0.06890756 = sum of:
        0.038986187 = weight(_text_:web in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038986187 = score(doc=604,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 604, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=604)
        0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008737902 = score(doc=604,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 604, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=604)
        0.021183468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021183468 = score(doc=604,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 604, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=604)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Modern information retrieval systems use keywords within documents as indexing terms for search of relevant documents. As Chinese is an ideographic character-based language, the words in the texts are not delimited by white spaces. Indexing of Chinese documents is impossible without a proper segmentation algorithm. Many Chinese segmentation algorithms have been proposed in the past. Traditional segmentation algorithms cannot operate without a large dictionary or a large corpus of training data. Nowadays, the Web has become the largest corpus that is ideal for Chinese segmentation. Although most search engines have problems in segmenting texts into proper words, they maintain huge databases of documents and frequencies of character sequences in the documents. Their databases are important potential resources for segmentation. In this paper, we propose a segmentation algorithm by mining Web data with the help of search engines. On the other hand, the Romanized pinyin of Chinese language indicates boundaries of words in the text. Our algorithm is the first to utilize the Romanized pinyin to segmentation. It is the first unified segmentation algorithm for the Chinese language from different geographical areas, and it is also domain independent because of the nature of the Web. Experiments have been conducted on the datasets of a recent Chinese segmentation competition. The results show that our algorithm outperforms the traditional algorithms in terms of precision and recall. Moreover, our algorithm can effectively deal with the problems of segmentation ambiguity, new word (unknown word) detection, and stop words.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenschwerpunktes "Mining Web resources for enhancing information retrieval"
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.12, S.1820-1837
  16. Luo, Z.; Yu, Y.; Osborne, M.; Wang, T.: Structuring tweets for improving Twitter search (2015) 0.01
    0.014390454 = product of:
      0.06715545 = sum of:
        0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 2335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017435152 = score(doc=2335,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2335, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2335)
        0.010089659 = weight(_text_:information in 2335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010089659 = score(doc=2335,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2335, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2335)
        0.03963064 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03963064 = score(doc=2335,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.442117 = fieldWeight in 2335, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2335)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Spam and wildly varying documents make searching in Twitter challenging. Most Twitter search systems generally treat a Tweet as a plain text when modeling relevance. However, a series of conventions allows users to Tweet in structural ways using a combination of different blocks of texts. These blocks include plain texts, hashtags, links, mentions, etc. Each block encodes a variety of communicative intent and the sequence of these blocks captures changing discourse. Previous work shows that exploiting the structural information can improve the structured documents (e.g., web pages) retrieval. In this study we utilize the structure of Tweets, induced by these blocks, for Twitter retrieval and Twitter opinion retrieval. For Twitter retrieval, a set of features, derived from the blocks of text and their combinations, is used into a learning-to-rank scenario. We show that structuring Tweets can achieve state-of-the-art performance. Our approach does not rely on social media features, but when we do add this additional information, performance improves significantly. For Twitter opinion retrieval, we explore the question of whether structural information derived from the body of Tweets and opinionatedness ratings of Tweets can improve performance. Experimental results show that retrieval using a novel unsupervised opinionatedness feature based on structuring Tweets achieves comparable performance with a supervised method using manually tagged Tweets. Topic-related specific structured Tweet sets are shown to help with query-dependent opinion retrieval.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2522-2539
  17. Korman, D.Z.; Mack, E.; Jett, J.; Renear, A.H.: Defining textual entailment (2018) 0.01
    0.014362549 = product of:
      0.06702523 = sum of:
        0.03856498 = weight(_text_:wide in 4284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03856498 = score(doc=4284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 4284, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4284)
        0.0104854815 = weight(_text_:information in 4284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0104854815 = score(doc=4284,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 4284, 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=4284)
        0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01797477 = score(doc=4284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4284, 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=4284)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Textual entailment is a relationship that obtains between fragments of text when one fragment in some sense implies the other fragment. The automation of textual entailment recognition supports a wide variety of text-based tasks, including information retrieval, information extraction, question answering, text summarization, and machine translation. Much ingenuity has been devoted to developing algorithms for identifying textual entailments, but relatively little to saying what textual entailment actually is. This article is a review of the logical and philosophical issues involved in providing an adequate definition of textual entailment. We show that many natural definitions of textual entailment are refuted by counterexamples, including the most widely cited definition of Dagan et al. We then articulate and defend the following revised definition: T textually entails H?=?df typically, a human reading T would be justified in inferring the proposition expressed by H from the proposition expressed by T. We also show that textual entailment is context-sensitive, nontransitive, and nonmonotonic.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.6, S.763-772
  18. Rajasurya, S.; Muralidharan, T.; Devi, S.; Swamynathan, S.: Semantic information retrieval using ontology in university domain (2012) 0.01
    0.013883932 = product of:
      0.06479168 = sum of:
        0.034870304 = weight(_text_:web in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034870304 = score(doc=2861,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
        0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008737902 = score(doc=2861,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
        0.021183468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021183468 = score(doc=2861,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Today's conventional search engines hardly do provide the essential content relevant to the user's search query. This is because the context and semantics of the request made by the user is not analyzed to the full extent. So here the need for a semantic web search arises. SWS is upcoming in the area of web search which combines Natural Language Processing and Artificial Intelligence. The objective of the work done here is to design, develop and implement a semantic search engine- SIEU(Semantic Information Extraction in University Domain) confined to the university domain. SIEU uses ontology as a knowledge base for the information retrieval process. It is not just a mere keyword search. It is one layer above what Google or any other search engines retrieve by analyzing just the keywords. Here the query is analyzed both syntactically and semantically. The developed system retrieves the web results more relevant to the user query through keyword expansion. The results obtained here will be accurate enough to satisfy the request made by the user. The level of accuracy will be enhanced since the query is analyzed semantically. The system will be of great use to the developers and researchers who work on web. The Google results are re-ranked and optimized for providing the relevant links. For ranking an algorithm has been applied which fetches more apt results for the user query.
  19. Radev, D.; Fan, W.; Qu, H.; Wu, H.; Grewal, A.: Probabilistic question answering on the Web (2005) 0.01
    0.012914326 = product of:
      0.060266852 = sum of:
        0.036238287 = weight(_text_:web in 3455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036238287 = score(doc=3455,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 3455, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3455)
        0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 3455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060537956 = score(doc=3455,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3455, 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=3455)
        0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01797477 = score(doc=3455,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 3455, 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=3455)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Web-based search engines such as Google and NorthernLight return documents that are relevant to a user query, not answers to user questions. We have developed an architecture that augments existing search engines so that they support natural language question answering. The process entails five steps: query modulation, document retrieval, passage extraction, phrase extraction, and answer ranking. In this article, we describe some probabilistic approaches to the last three of these stages. We show how our techniques apply to a number of existing search engines, and we also present results contrasting three different methods for question answering. Our algorithm, probabilistic phrase reranking (PPR), uses proximity and question type features and achieves a total reciprocal document rank of .20 an the TREC8 corpus. Our techniques have been implemented as a Web-accessible system, called NSIR.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.6, S.571-583
  20. Clark, M.; Kim, Y.; Kruschwitz, U.; Song, D.; Albakour, D.; Dignum, S.; Beresi, U.C.; Fasli, M.; Roeck, A De: Automatically structuring domain knowledge from text : an overview of current research (2012) 0.01
    0.012026694 = product of:
      0.056124568 = sum of:
        0.029588435 = weight(_text_:web in 2738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029588435 = score(doc=2738,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2738, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2738)
        0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 2738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00856136 = score(doc=2738,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2738, 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=2738)
        0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01797477 = score(doc=2738,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2738, 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=2738)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    This paper presents an overview of automatic methods for building domain knowledge structures (domain models) from text collections. Applications of domain models have a long history within knowledge engineering and artificial intelligence. In the last couple of decades they have surfaced noticeably as a useful tool within natural language processing, information retrieval and semantic web technology. Inspired by the ubiquitous propagation of domain model structures that are emerging in several research disciplines, we give an overview of the current research landscape and some techniques and approaches. We will also discuss trade-offs between different approaches and point to some recent trends.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Soft Approaches to IA on the Web". Vgl.: doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2011.07.002.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 48(2012) no.3, S.552-568

Authors

Types