Search (22 results, page 1 of 2)

0.018342271 = product of:
  0.08559726 = sum of:
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 5695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=5695,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 5695, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5695)
    0.02849856 = product of:
      0.05699712 = sum of:
        0.05699712 = weight(_text_:schemes in 5695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05699712 = score(doc=5695,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.35474116 = fieldWeight in 5695, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5695)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 5695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=5695,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 5695, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5695)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

To provide advice for online searching about term selection and query expansion, an intermediary expert system should indicate a terminological knowledge structure. Terminological attributes could provide the foundation of a knowledge base, and knowledge acquisition could rely on knowledge base techniques coupled with statistical techniques. The strategies of expert searchers would provide 1 source of knowledge. The knowledge structure would include 3 constructs for each term: frequency data, a hedge, and a position in a classification scheme. Switching vocabularies could provide a meta-scheme and facilitate the interoperability of databases in similar subjects. To develop such knowledge structure, research should focus on terminological attributes, word and phrase disambiguation, automated text processing, and the role of thesauri and classification schemes in indexing and retrieval. It should develop techniques that combine knowledge base and statistical methods and that consider user preferences

0.017777555 = product of:
  0.082961924 = sum of:
    0.059409913 = weight(_text_:subject in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059409913 = score(doc=1800,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
    0.011776006 = weight(_text_:classification in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011776006 = score(doc=1800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.12315229 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
    0.011776006 = weight(_text_:classification in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011776006 = score(doc=1800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.12315229 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The SAC Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures was authorized at the 1995 Midwinter Meeting and appointed shortly before Annual Conference. Its creation was one result of a discussion of how (and why) to promote the display and use of broader-term subject heading references, and its charge reads as follows: To investigate: (1) the kinds of relationships that exist between subjects, the display of which are likely to be useful to catalog users; (2) how these relationships are or could be recorded in authorities and classification formats; (3) options for how these relationships should be presented to users of online and print catalogs, indexes, lists, etc. By the summer 1996 Annual Conference, make some recommendations to SAC about how to disseminate the information and/or implement changes. At that time assess the need for additional time to investigate these issues. The Subcommittee's work on each of the imperatives in the charge was summarized in a report issued at the 1996 Annual Conference (Appendix A). Highlights of this work included the development of a taxonomy of 165 subject relationships; a demonstration that, using existing MARC coding, catalog systems could be programmed to generate references they do not currently support; and an examination of reference displays in several CD-ROM database products. Since that time, work has continued on identifying term relationships and display options; on tracking research, discussion, and implementation of subject relationships in information systems; and on compiling a list of further research needs.

Content

Enthält: Appendix A: Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures - REPORT TO THE ALCTS/CCS SUBJECT ANALYSIS COMMITTEE - July 1996 Appendix B (part 1): Taxonomy of Subject Relationships. Compiled by Dee Michel with the assistance of Pat Kuhr - June 1996 draft (alphabetical display) (Separat in: http://web2.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/CCS/committees/subjectanalysis/subjectrelations/msrscu2.pdf) Appendix B (part 2): Taxonomy of Subject Relationships. Compiled by Dee Michel with the assistance of Pat Kuhr - June 1996 draft (hierarchical display) Appendix C: Checklist of Candidate Subject Relationships for Information Retrieval. Compiled by Dee Michel, Pat Kuhr, and Jane Greenberg; edited by Greg Wool - June 1997 Appendix D: Review of Reference Displays in Selected CD-ROM Abstracts and Indexes by Harriette Hemmasi and Steven Riel Appendix E: Analysis of Relationships in Six LC Subject Authority Records by Harriette Hemmasi and Gary Strawn Appendix F: Report of a Preliminary Survey of Subject Referencing in OPACs by Gregory Wool Appendix G: LC Subject Referencing in OPACs--Why Bother? by Gregory Wool Appendix H: Research Needs on Subject Relationships and Reference Structures in Information Access compiled by Jane Greenberg and Steven Riel with contributions from Dee Michel and others edited by Gregory Wool Appendix I: Bibliography on Subject Relationships compiled mostly by Dee Michel with additional contributions from Jane Greenberg, Steven Riel, and Gregory Wool

0.010328798 = product of:
  0.07230158 = sum of:
    0.03675035 = weight(_text_:subject in 5691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03675035 = score(doc=5691,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 5691, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5691)
    0.035551235 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035551235 = score(doc=5691,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 5691, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5691)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The second half of a 'before and after' study to evaluate the impact of an online catalogue on subject searching behaviour is reported. A holistic approach is adopted encompassing both catalogue use and browsing at the shelves for catalogue users and non-users. Verbal and non-verbal data were elicited from searchers using a combined methodology including talk-aloud technique, observation and a screen logging facility. An extensive qualitative analysis was carried out correlating expressed topics, search formulation strategies and documents retrieved at the shelves. The online catalogue environment does not appear to have increased the extent of subject searching nor the use of the bibliographic tool. The manual PRECIS index supported a contextual approach for broad and more interactive search formulations whereas the OPAC encouraged a matching approach and narrow formulations with fewer but user generated formulations. The success rate of the online catalogue was slightly better than that of the manual tools but fewer items were retrieved at the shelves. Non-users of the bibliographic tools seemed to be just as successful. To improve retrieval effectiveness it is suggested that online catalogues should cater for both matching and contextual approaches to searching. Recent research indicates that a more interactive process could be promoted by providing query expansion through a combination of searching aids for matching, for search formulation assistance and for structured contextual retrieval

0.008156957 = product of:
  0.057098698 = sum of:
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 5698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=5698,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 5698, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5698)
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 5698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=5698,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 5698, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5698)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Describes the shortcomings of search engines for the WWW comparing their current capabilities to those of the first generation CD-ROM products. Some allow phrase searching and most are improving their Boolean searching. Few allow truncation, wild cards or nested logic. They are stateless, losing previous search criteria. Unlike the indexing and classification systems for today's CD-ROMs, those for Web pages are random, unstructured and of variable quality. Considers that at best Web search engines can only offer free text searching. Discusses whether automatic data classification systems such as Infoseek Ultra can overcome the haphazard nature of the Web with neural network technology, and whether Boolean search techniques may be redundant when replaced by technology such as the Euroferret search engine. However, artificial intelligence is rarely successful on huge, varied databases. Relevance ranking and automatic query expansion still use the same simple inverted indexes. Most Web search engines do nothing more than word counting. Further complications arise with foreign languages

0.008156957 = product of:
  0.057098698 = sum of:
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 5362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=5362,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 5362, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5362)
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 5362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=5362,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 5362, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5362)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The goal of this study is to evaluate, compare, and contrast how facet analysis is used to construct the systematic or faceted displays of a selection of information retrieval thesauri. More specifically, the study seeks to examine which principles of facet analysis are used in the thesauri, and the extent to which different thesauri apply these principles in the same way. A measuring instrument was designed for the purpose of evaluating the structure of faceted thesauri. This instrument was applied to fourteen faceted information retrieval thesauri. The study reveals that the thesauri do not share a common definition of what constitutes a facet. In some cases, the thesauri apply both enumerative-style classification and facet analysis to arrange their indexing terms. A number of the facets used in the thesauri are not homogeneous or mutually exclusive. The principle of synthesis is used in only 50% of the thesauri, and no one citation order is used consistently by the thesauri.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 28(1999) no.4, S.31-52

0.007946802 = product of:
  0.055627614 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=1493,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 1493, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1493)
    0.030166224 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030166224 = score(doc=1493,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 1493, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1493)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Describes the OKAPI projects and OKAPI's development as an experimental online catalogue system over 10 years, first at the University of Westminster (formerly the Polytechnique of Central London) and subsequently at City University, London. The 1st OKAPI project in 1984 introduced 'best match' retrieval and focused on the user interface design. The 2nd investigated word stemming, spelling correction and cross reference tables as retrieval aids. A comparative study of 2 library catalogues was undertaken in 1987, while in 1988 query expansion and relevance feedback were introduced and evaluated by laboratory tests. In 1990 live evaluation of automatic query expansion was carried out and in 1993 subject enhancement of bibliographic records was investigated. The latest project has examined the design of a graphical user interface to support interactive query expansion. Discusses the research and evaluation of each project

0.00576784 = product of:
  0.04037488 = sum of:
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 2229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=2229,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2229, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2229)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 2229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=2229,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2229, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2229)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Modern fact databses contain abundant data classified through several classifications. Typically, users msut consult these classifications in separate manuals or files, thus making their effective use difficult. Contemporary database systems do little support deductive use of classifications. In this study we show how deductive data management techniques can be applied to the utilization of data value classifications. Computation of transitive class relationships is of primary importance here. We define a representation of classifications which supports transitive computation and present an operation-oriented deductive query language tailored for classification-based deductive information retrieval. The operations of this language are on the same abstraction level as relational algebra operations and can be integrated with these to form a powerful and flexible query language for deductive information retrieval. We define the integration of these operations and demonstrate the usefulness of the language in terms of several sample queries

0.0043094605 = product of:
  0.060332447 = sum of:
    0.060332447 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060332447 = score(doc=6419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 6419, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6419)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0042866482 = product of:
  0.060013074 = sum of:
    0.060013074 = weight(_text_:subject in 5346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060013074 = score(doc=5346,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.55884314 = fieldWeight in 5346, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5346)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Teil von: Final Report to the ALCTS/CCS Subject Analysis Committee. June 1997 (http://web2.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/CCS/committees/subjectanalysis/subjectrelations/finalreport.cfm).

0.004200041 = product of:
  0.058800567 = sum of:
    0.058800567 = weight(_text_:subject in 5690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058800567 = score(doc=5690,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5475522 = fieldWeight in 5690, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5690)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Discusses some of the methods of subject access to on-line catalohues (OPACs) and argues that none are entirley satisfactory. Describes 2 methods for improving subject access: best match searching; and automatic query expansion application and discusses their feasibility. Mentions emerging application standards for information retrieval and concludes that existing standards are incompatible with most methods for improving standards

0.0030311183 = product of:
  0.042435654 = sum of:
    0.042435654 = weight(_text_:subject in 1816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042435654 = score(doc=1816,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 1816, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1816)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0030006538 = product of:
  0.042009152 = sum of:
    0.042009152 = weight(_text_:subject in 42) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042009152 = score(doc=42,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 42, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=42)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Parent-Child relationships in MeSH trees were surveyed and described, and their patterns in the relational structure were determined for selected broad subject categories and subcategories. Is-a relationships dominated and were more prevalent overall than previously reported; however, an additional 67 different relationships were also seen, most of them nonhierarchical. Relational profiles were found to vary both within and among subject subdomains, but tended to display characteristic domain patterns. The implications for inferential reasoning and other cognitive and computational operations on hierarchical structures are considered

0.0024248946 = product of:
  0.033948522 = sum of:
    0.033948522 = weight(_text_:subject in 4847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033948522 = score(doc=4847,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 4847, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4847)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

State of the art review of query expansion (or term expansion) as the process of supplementing the original query with additional terms in order to improve retrieval performance. Research in the subject is presented in a highly structured way and is presented according to 3 types of query expansion; manual query expansion; automatic query expansion; and interactive query expansion

0.0021217826 = product of:
  0.029704956 = sum of:
    0.029704956 = weight(_text_:subject in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029704956 = score(doc=1318,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0018186709 = product of:
  0.02546139 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 5202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=5202,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 5202, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5202)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

In this article, we report research on an algorithmic approach to alleviating search uncertainty in a large information space. Grounded on object filtering, automatic indexing, and co-occurence analysis, we performed a large-scale experiment using a parallel supercomputer (SGI Power Challenge) to analyze 400.000+ abstracts in an INSPEC computer engineering collection. Two system-generated thesauri, one based on a combined object filtering and automatic indexing method, and the other based on automatic indexing only, were compaed with the human-generated INSPEC subject thesaurus. Our user evaluation revealed that the system-generated thesauri were better than the INSPEC thesaurus in 'concept recall', but in 'concept precision' the 3 thesauri were comparable. Our analysis also revealed that the terms suggested by the 3 thesauri were complementary and could be used to significantly increase 'variety' in search terms the thereby reduce search uncertainty

0.0018186709 = product of:
  0.02546139 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 1162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=1162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 1162, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1162)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) is a theory and method for extracting and representing the contextual-usage meaning of words by statistical computations applied to a large corpus of text (Landauer and Dumais, 1997). The underlying idea is that the aggregate of all the word contexts in which a given word does and does not appear provides a set of mutual constraints that largely determines the similarity of meaning of words and sets of words to each other. The adequacy of LSA's reflection of human knowledge has been established in a variety of ways. For example, its scores overlap those of humans on standard vocabulary and subject matter tests; it mimics human word sorting and category judgments; it simulates word-word and passage-word lexical priming data; and as reported in 3 following articles in this issue, it accurately estimates passage coherence, learnability of passages by individual students, and the quality and quantity of knowledge contained in an essay.

0.0011622861 = product of:
  0.016272005 = sum of:
    0.016272005 = product of:
      0.03254401 = sum of:
        0.03254401 = weight(_text_:22 in 5693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03254401 = score(doc=5693,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5693, 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=5693)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

30. 3.2001 13:35:22

0.0010170004 = product of:
  0.014238005 = sum of:
    0.014238005 = product of:
      0.02847601 = sum of:
        0.02847601 = weight(_text_:22 in 6958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02847601 = score(doc=6958,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6958, 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=6958)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon

0.0010170004 = product of:
  0.014238005 = sum of:
    0.014238005 = product of:
      0.02847601 = sum of:
        0.02847601 = weight(_text_:22 in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02847601 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1319, 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=1319)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

0.0010170004 = product of:
  0.014238005 = sum of:
    0.014238005 = product of:
      0.02847601 = sum of:
        0.02847601 = weight(_text_:22 in 2151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02847601 = score(doc=2151,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2151, 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=2151)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society: July 22 - 25, 1995, University of Pittsburgh / ed. by Johanna D. Moore and Jill Fain Lehmann