Search (75 results, page 4 of 4)

0.002625104 = product of:
  0.021000832 = sum of:
    0.021000832 = product of:
      0.042001665 = sum of:
        0.042001665 = weight(_text_:22 in 2193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042001665 = score(doc=2193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2193, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 14(1992) nos.3/4, S.5-22

0.002625104 = product of:
  0.021000832 = sum of:
    0.021000832 = product of:
      0.042001665 = sum of:
        0.042001665 = weight(_text_:22 in 8460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042001665 = score(doc=8460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 8460, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Reference services review. 22(1994) no.2, S.31-40

0.002625104 = product of:
  0.021000832 = sum of:
    0.021000832 = product of:
      0.042001665 = sum of:
        0.042001665 = weight(_text_:22 in 4226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042001665 = score(doc=4226,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4226, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

13. 6.1996 19:22:20

0.002625104 = product of:
  0.021000832 = sum of:
    0.021000832 = product of:
      0.042001665 = sum of:
        0.042001665 = weight(_text_:22 in 7415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042001665 = score(doc=7415,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7415, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7415)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

State of the art review of natural language processing updating an earlier review published in ARIST 22(1987). Discusses important developments that have allowed for significant advances in the field of natural language processing: materials and resources; knowledge based systems and statistical approaches; and a strong emphasis on evaluation. Reviews some natural language processing applications and common problems still awaiting solution. Considers closely related applications such as language generation and th egeneration phase of machine translation which face the same problems as natural language processing. Covers natural language methodologies for information retrieval only briefly

0.002625104 = product of:
  0.021000832 = sum of:
    0.021000832 = product of:
      0.042001665 = sum of:
        0.042001665 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042001665 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.002625104 = product of:
  0.021000832 = sum of:
    0.021000832 = product of:
      0.042001665 = sum of:
        0.042001665 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042001665 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.002523417 = product of:
  0.020187335 = sum of:
    0.020187335 = weight(_text_:work in 4276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020187335 = score(doc=4276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.14193363 = fieldWeight in 4276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4276)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Advanced technology has resulted in the generation of about one million terabytes of information every year. Ninety-reine percent of this is available in digital format (Keim, 2001). More information will be generated in the next three years than was created during all of previous human history (Keim, 2001). Collecting information is no longer a problem, but extracting value from information collections has become progressively more difficult. Various search engines have been developed to make it easier to locate information of interest, but these work well only for a person who has a specific goal and who understands what and how information is stored. This usually is not the Gase. Visualization was commonly thought of in terms of representing human mental processes (MacEachren, 1991; Miller, 1984). The concept is now associated with the amplification of these mental processes (Card, Mackinlay, & Shneiderman, 1999). Human eyes can process visual cues rapidly, whereas advanced information analysis techniques transform the computer into a powerful means of managing digitized information. Visualization offers a link between these two potent systems, the human eye and the computer (Gershon, Eick, & Card, 1998), helping to identify patterns and to extract insights from large amounts of information. The identification of patterns is important because it may lead to a scientific discovery, an interpretation of clues to solve a crime, the prediction of catastrophic weather, a successful financial investment, or a better understanding of human behavior in a computermediated environment. Visualization technology shows considerable promise for increasing the value of large-scale collections of information, as evidenced by several commercial applications of TreeMap (e.g., http://www.smartmoney.com) and Hyperbolic tree (e.g., http://www.inxight.com) to visualize large-scale hierarchical structures. Although the proliferation of visualization technologies dates from the 1990s where sophisticated hardware and software made increasingly faster generation of graphical objects possible, the role of visual aids in facilitating the construction of mental images has a long history. Visualization has been used to communicate ideas, to monitor trends implicit in data, and to explore large volumes of data for hypothesis generation. Imagine traveling to a strange place without a map, having to memorize physical and chemical properties of an element without Mendeleyev's periodic table, trying to understand the stock market without statistical diagrams, or browsing a collection of documents without interactive visual aids. A collection of information can lose its value simply because of the effort required for exhaustive exploration. Such frustrations can be overcome by visualization.

0.002296966 = product of:
  0.018375728 = sum of:
    0.018375728 = product of:
      0.036751457 = sum of:
        0.036751457 = weight(_text_:22 in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036751457 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5006, 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=5006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

18. 5.2006 20:06:22

0.002296966 = product of:
  0.018375728 = sum of:
    0.018375728 = product of:
      0.036751457 = sum of:
        0.036751457 = weight(_text_:22 in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036751457 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4309, 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=4309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.002162929 = product of:
  0.017303431 = sum of:
    0.017303431 = weight(_text_:work in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017303431 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.1216574 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The concept of information as we use it in everyday English, in the sense of knowledge communicated, plays a central role in contemporary society. The development and widespread use of computer networks since the end of World War II, and the emergence of information science as a discipline in the 1950s, are evidence of this focus. Although knowledge and its communication are basic phenomena of every human society, it is the rise of information technology and its global impacts that characterize ours as an information society. It is commonplace to consider information as a basic condition for economic development together with capital, labor, and raw material; but what makes information especially significant at present is its digital nature. The impact of information technology an the natural and social sciences in particular has made this everyday notion a highly controversial concept. Claude Shannon's (1948) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is a landmark work, referring to the common use of information with its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, while at the same time redefining the concept within an engineering framework. The fact that the concept of knowledge communication has been designated by the word information seems, prima facie, a linguistic happenstance. For a science like information science (IS), it is of course important how fundamental terms are defined; and in IS, as in other fields, the question of how to define information is often raised. This chapter is an attempt to review the status of the concept of information in IS, with reference also to interdisciplinary trends. In scientific discourse, theoretical concepts are not true or false elements or glimpses of some element of reality; rather, they are constructions designed to do a job in the best possible way. Different conceptions of fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful, depending an the theories (and in the end, the practical actions) they are expected to support. In the opening section, we discuss the problem of defining terms from the perspective of the philosophy of science. The history of a word provides us with anecdotes that are tangential to the concept itself. But in our case, the use of the word information points to a specific perspective from which the concept of knowledge communication has been defined. This perspective includes such characteristics as novelty and relevante; i.e., it refers to the process of knowledge transformation, and particularly to selection and interpretation within a specific context. The discussion leads to the questions of why and when this meaning was designated with the word information. We will explore this history, and we believe that our results may help readers better understand the complexity of the concept with regard to its scientific definitions.

0.002162929 = product of:
  0.017303431 = sum of:
    0.017303431 = weight(_text_:work in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017303431 = score(doc=1978,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.1216574 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This chapter examines the nature of semantic relations and their main applications in information science. The nature and types of semantic relations are discussed from the perspectives of linguistics and psychology. An overview of the semantic relations used in knowledge structures such as thesauri and ontologies is provided, as well as the main techniques used in the automatic extraction of semantic relations from text. The chapter then reviews the use of semantic relations in information extraction, information retrieval, question-answering, and automatic text summarization applications. Concepts and relations are the foundation of knowledge and thought. When we look at the world, we perceive not a mass of colors but objects to which we automatically assign category labels. Our perceptual system automatically segments the world into concepts and categories. Concepts are the building blocks of knowledge; relations act as the cement that links concepts into knowledge structures. We spend much of our lives identifying regular associations and relations between objects, events, and processes so that the world has an understandable structure and predictability. Our lives and work depend on the accuracy and richness of this knowledge structure and its web of relations. Relations are needed for reasoning and inferencing. Chaffin and Herrmann (1988b, p. 290) noted that "relations between ideas have long been viewed as basic to thought, language, comprehension, and memory." Aristotle's Metaphysics (Aristotle, 1961; McKeon, expounded on several types of relations. The majority of the 30 entries in a section of the Metaphysics known today as the Philosophical Lexicon referred to relations and attributes, including cause, part-whole, same and opposite, quality (i.e., attribute) and kind-of, and defined different types of each relation. Hume (1955) pointed out that there is a connection between successive ideas in our minds, even in our dreams, and that the introduction of an idea in our mind automatically recalls an associated idea. He argued that all the objects of human reasoning are divided into relations of ideas and matters of fact and that factual reasoning is founded on the cause-effect relation. His Treatise of Human Nature identified seven kinds of relations: resemblance, identity, relations of time and place, proportion in quantity or number, degrees in quality, contrariety, and causation. Mill (1974, pp. 989-1004) discoursed on several types of relations, claiming that all things are either feelings, substances, or attributes, and that attributes can be a quality (which belongs to one object) or a relation to other objects.

0.002162929 = product of:
  0.017303431 = sum of:
    0.017303431 = weight(_text_:work in 2462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017303431 = score(doc=2462,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.1216574 = fieldWeight in 2462, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2462)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) was first introduced in Dumais, Furnas, Landauer, and Deerwester (1988) and Deerwester, Dumais, Furnas, Landauer, and Harshman (1990) as a technique for improving information retrieval. The key insight in LSA was to reduce the dimensionality of the information retrieval problem. Most approaches to retrieving information depend an a lexical match between words in the user's query and those in documents. Indeed, this lexical matching is the way that the popular Web and enterprise search engines work. Such systems are, however, far from ideal. We are all aware of the tremendous amount of irrelevant information that is retrieved when searching. We also fail to find much of the existing relevant material. LSA was designed to address these retrieval problems, using dimension reduction techniques. Fundamental characteristics of human word usage underlie these retrieval failures. People use a wide variety of words to describe the same object or concept (synonymy). Furnas, Landauer, Gomez, and Dumais (1987) showed that people generate the same keyword to describe well-known objects only 20 percent of the time. Poor agreement was also observed in studies of inter-indexer consistency (e.g., Chan, 1989; Tarr & Borko, 1974) in the generation of search terms (e.g., Fidel, 1985; Bates, 1986), and in the generation of hypertext links (Furner, Ellis, & Willett, 1999). Because searchers and authors often use different words, relevant materials are missed. Someone looking for documents an "human-computer interaction" will not find articles that use only the phrase "man-machine studies" or "human factors." People also use the same word to refer to different things (polysemy). Words like "saturn," "jaguar," or "chip" have several different meanings. A short query like "saturn" will thus return many irrelevant documents. The query "Saturn Gar" will return fewer irrelevant items, but it will miss some documents that use only the terms "Saturn automobile." In searching, there is a constant tension between being overly specific and missing relevant information, and being more general and returning irrelevant information.

0.0019688278 = product of:
  0.015750622 = sum of:
    0.015750622 = product of:
      0.031501245 = sum of:
        0.031501245 = weight(_text_:22 in 2548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031501245 = score(doc=2548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2548, 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=2548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0019688278 = product of:
  0.015750622 = sum of:
    0.015750622 = product of:
      0.031501245 = sum of:
        0.031501245 = weight(_text_:22 in 2608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031501245 = score(doc=2608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2608, 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=2608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.00164069 = product of:
  0.01312552 = sum of:
    0.01312552 = product of:
      0.02625104 = sum of:
        0.02625104 = weight(_text_:22 in 1088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02625104 = score(doc=1088,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1088, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1088)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22