Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.022797368 = product of:
  0.045594737 = sum of:
    0.020812286 = weight(_text_:information in 6055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020812286 = score(doc=6055,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 6055, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6055)
    0.024782453 = product of:
      0.049564905 = sum of:
        0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 6055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049564905 = score(doc=6055,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 6055, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6055)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

A lattice-based model for information retrieval was suggested in the 1960's but has been seen as a theoretical possibility hard to practically apply ever since. This paper attempts to revive the lattice model and demonstrate its applicability in an information retrieval system, FalR, that incorporates a graphical representation of a faceted thesaurus. It shows how Boolean queries can be lattice-theoretically related to the concepts of the thesaurus and visualized within the thesaurus display. An advantage of FaIR is that it allows for a high level of transparency of the system, which can be controlled by the user

Source

Knowledge organization. 27(2000) no.3, S.132-142

0.020450171 = product of:
  0.040900342 = sum of:
    0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01699316 = score(doc=5095,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 5095, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5095)
    0.023907183 = product of:
      0.047814365 = sum of:
        0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047814365 = score(doc=5095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5095, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5095)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper presents an abstract formalization of the notion of "facets". Facets are relational structures of units, relations and other facets selected for a certain purpose. Facets can be used to structure large knowledge representation systems into a hierarchical arrangement of consistent and independent subsystems (facets) that facilitate flexibility and combinations of different viewpoints or aspects. This paper describes the basic notions, facet characteristics and construction mechanisms. It then explicates the theory in an example of a faceted information retrieval system (FaIR)

Date

22. 1.2016 17:47:06

0.010013623 = product of:
  0.040054493 = sum of:
    0.040054493 = product of:
      0.080108985 = sum of:
        0.080108985 = weight(_text_:organization in 6485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.080108985 = score(doc=6485,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.44566956 = fieldWeight in 6485, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6485)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.7

Source

Dynamism and stability in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 6th International ISKO-Conference, 10-13 July 2000, Toronto, Canada. Ed.: C. Beghtol et al

0.009710376 = product of:
  0.038841505 = sum of:
    0.038841505 = weight(_text_:information in 4305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038841505 = score(doc=4305,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.43886948 = fieldWeight in 4305, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4305)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 40(2006), S.xxx-xxx

0.0037164795 = product of:
  0.014865918 = sum of:
    0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 4766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014865918 = score(doc=4766,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 4766, 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=4766)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Current best-match ranking (BMR) systems perform well but cannot handle word mismatch between a query and a document. The best known alternative ranking method, hierarchical clustering-based ranking (HCR), seems to be more robust than BMR with respect to this problem, but it is hampered by theoretical and practical limitations. We present an approach to document ranking that explicitly addresses the word mismatch problem by exploiting interdocument similarity information in a novel way. Document ranking is seen as a query-document transformation driven by a conceptual representation of the whole document collection, into which the query is merged. Our approach is nased on the theory of concept (or Galois) lattices, which, er argue, provides a powerful, well-founded, and conputationally-tractable framework to model the space in which documents and query are represented and to compute such a transformation. We compared information retrieval using concept lattice-based ranking (CLR) to BMR and HCR. The results showed that HCR was outperformed by CLR as well as BMR, and suggested that, of the two best methods, BMR achieved better performance than CLR on the whole document set, whereas CLR compared more favorably when only the first retrieved documents were used for evaluation. We also evaluated the three methods' specific ability to rank documents that did not match the query, in which case the speriority of CLR over BMR and HCR was apparent

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.7, S.587-601

0.0036413912 = product of:
  0.014565565 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=5082,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 5082, 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=5082)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to indicate how TOSCANA may be extended to allow graphical representations not only of concept lattices but also of concept graphs in the sense of Contextual Logic. The contextual- logic extension of TOSCANA requires the logical scaling of conceptual and relational scales for which we propose the Peircean Algebraic Logic as reconstructed by R. W. Burch. As graphical representations we recommend, besides labelled line diagrams of concept lattices and Sowa's diagrams of conceptual graphs, particular information maps for utilizing background knowledge as much as possible. Our considerations are illustrated by a small information system about the domestic flights in Austria

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5083, 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=5083)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss Conceptual Knowledge Discovery in Databases (CKDD) in its connection with Data Analysis. Our approach is based on Formal Concept Analysis, a mathematical theory which has been developed and proven useful during the last 20 years. Formal Concept Analysis has led to a theory of conceptual information systems which has been applied by using the management system TOSCANA in a wide range of domains. In this paper, we use such an application in database marketing to demonstrate how methods and procedures of CKDD can be applied in Data Analysis. In particular, we show the interplay and integration of data mining and data analysis techniques based on Formal Concept Analysis. The main concern of this paper is to explain how the transition from data to knowledge can be supported by a TOSCANA system. To clarify the transition steps we discuss their correspondence to the five levels of knowledge representation established by R. Brachman and to the steps of empirically grounded theory building proposed by A. Strauss and J. Corbin