Search (148 results, page 2 of 8)

0.011455346 = product of:
  0.045821384 = sum of:
    0.045821384 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045821384 = score(doc=1022,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1022, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1022)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Bibliometric-enhanced information retrieval uses bibliometrics (e.g., citations) to improve ranking algorithms. Using a data-driven approach, this article describes the development of a bibliometric-enhanced ranking algorithm for legal information retrieval, and the evaluation thereof. We statistically analyze the correlation between usage of documents and citations over time, using data from a commercial legal search engine. We then propose a bibliometric boost function that combines usage of documents with citation counts. The core of this function is an impact variable based on usage and citations that increases in influence as citations and usage counts become more reliable over time. We evaluate our ranking function by comparing search sessions before and after the introduction of the new ranking in the search engine. Using a cost model applied to 129,571 sessions before and 143,864 sessions after the intervention, we show that our bibliometric-enhanced ranking algorithm reduces the time of a search session of legal professionals by 2 to 3% on average for use cases other than known-item retrieval or updating behavior. Given the high hourly tariff of legal professionals and the limited time they can spend on research, this is expected to lead to increased efficiency, especially for users with extremely long search sessions.

0.009920621 = product of:
  0.039682485 = sum of:
    0.039682485 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039682485 = score(doc=5506,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 5506, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5506)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Statistical significance tests can provide evidence that the observed difference in performance between 2 methods is not due to chance. In information retrieval (IR), some studies have examined the validity and suitability of such tests for comparing search systems. We argue here that current methods for assessing the reliability of statistical tests suffer from some methodological weaknesses, and we propose a novel way to study significance tests for retrieval evaluation. Using Score Distributions, we model the output of multiple search systems, produce simulated search results from such models, and compare them using various significance tests. A key strength of this approach is that we assess statistical tests under perfect knowledge about the truth or falseness of the null hypothesis. This new method for studying the power of significance tests in IR evaluation is formal and innovative. Following this type of analysis, we found that both the sign test and Wilcoxon signed test have more power than the permutation test and the t-test. The sign test and Wilcoxon signed test also have good behavior in terms of type I errors. The bootstrap test shows few type I errors, but it has less power than the other methods tested.

0.009920621 = product of:
  0.039682485 = sum of:
    0.039682485 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039682485 = score(doc=33,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

File sharing is an integral component of modern work. Files can be shared either using Group Information Management (GIM), where collaborators exploit a common repository (e.g., the cloud), or Personal Information Management (PIM), where files are sent via email attachments, and collaborators store files individually in personal collections. Given the recent prevalence of GIM, we compare the effects on retrieval for PIM versus GIM collections. We examine the effects of various theoretically motivated factors relating to collection size, properties of the target file, and user workload. In our study, 289 participants accessed 1,557 of their own shared files in a naturalistic setting. Results indicate that factors relating to collection size, file versions, and user workload negatively affect the retrieval of GIM more than PIM files, indicating that PIM is more scalable than GIM. Testing a very different population, we confirm previous findings that failure percentages of GIM are approximately double those of PIM. We discuss possible theoretical explanations, specifically how factors that hinder retrieval exacerbate the general GIM problem of retrieving files organized by other people. Overall, PIM's greater scalability has practical implications for fast-growing organizations such as startups when choosing their sharing policies.

0.009920621 = product of:
  0.039682485 = sum of:
    0.039682485 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039682485 = score(doc=1184,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Typographical errors in bibliographic records of online library catalogs are a common troublesome phenomenon, spread all over the world. They can affect the retrieval and identification of items in information retrieval systems and thus prevent users from finding the documents they need. The present study was conducted to measure typographical errors in the online catalog of the Egyptian Universities Libraries Consortium (EULC). The investigation depended on Terry Ballard's typographical error terms list. The EULC catalog was searched to identify matched erroneous records. The study found that the total number of erroneous records reached 1686, whereas the mean error rate for each record is 11.24, which is very high. About 396 erroneous records (23.49%) have been retrieved from Section C of Ballard's list (Moderate Probability). The typographical errors found within the abstracts of the study's sample records represented 35.82%. Omissions were the first common type of errors with 54.51%, followed by transpositions at 17.08%. Regarding the analysis of parts of speech, the study found that 63.46% of errors occur in noun terms. The results of the study indicated that typographical errors still pose a serious challenge for information retrieval systems, especially for library systems in the Arab environment. The study proposes some solutions for Egyptian university libraries in order to avoid typographic mistakes in the future.

0.009920621 = product of:
  0.039682485 = sum of:
    0.039682485 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039682485 = score(doc=1187,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Within the R&D program "Information support of research by scientists and specialists on the basis of RNPLS&T Open Archive - the system of scientific knowledge aggregation", the RNPLS&T analyzes the use of linguistic tools of thematic search in the modern library information systems and the prospects for their development. The author defines the key common characteristics of e-catalogs of the largest Russian libraries revealed at the first stage of the analysis. Based on the specified common characteristics and detailed comparison analysis, the author outlines and substantiates the vectors for enhancing search inter faces of e-catalogs. The focus is made on linguistic tools of thematic search in library information systems; the key vectors are suggested: use of thematic search at different search levels with the clear-cut level differentiation; use of combined functionality within thematic search system; implementation of classification search in all e-catalogs; hierarchical representation of classifications; use of the matching systems for classification information retrieval languages, and in the long term classification and verbal information retrieval languages, and various verbal information retrieval languages. The author formulates practical recommendations to improve thematic search in library information systems.

0.009720184 = product of:
  0.038880736 = sum of:
    0.038880736 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038880736 = score(doc=640,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 640, 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=640)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Involving users in early phases of software development has become a common strategy as it enables developers to consider user needs from the beginning. Once a system is in production, new opportunities to observe, evaluate and learn from users emerge as more information becomes available. Gathering information from users to continuously evaluate their behavior is a common practice for commercial software, while the Cranfield paradigm remains the preferred option for Information Retrieval (IR) and recommendation systems in the academic world. Here we introduce the Infrastructures for Living Labs STELLA project which aims to create an evaluation infrastructure allowing experimental systems to run along production web-based academic search systems with real users. STELLA combines user interactions and log files analyses to enable large-scale A/B experiments for academic search.

0.0091642765 = product of:
  0.036657106 = sum of:
    0.036657106 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036657106 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0091642765 = product of:
  0.036657106 = sum of:
    0.036657106 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036657106 = score(doc=436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 436, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=436)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.0091642765 = product of:
  0.036657106 = sum of:
    0.036657106 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036657106 = score(doc=688,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose The study aims to paint a representative picture of the current state of search interfaces of Swedish online museum collections, focussing on search functionalities with particular reference to subject searching, as well as the use of controlled vocabularies, with the purpose of identifying which improvements of the search interfaces are needed to ensure high-quality information retrieval for the end user. Design/methodology/approach In the first step, a set of 21 search interface criteria was identified, based on related research and current standards in the domain of cultural heritage knowledge organization. Secondly, a complete set of Swedish museums that provide online access to their collections was identified, comprising nine cross-search services and 91 individual museums' websites. These 100 websites were each evaluated against the 21 criteria, between 1 July and 31 August 2020. Findings Although many standards and guidelines are in place to ensure quality-controlled subject indexing, which in turn support information retrieval of relevant resources (as individual or full search results), the study shows that they are not broadly implemented, resulting in information retrieval failures for the end user. The study also demonstrates a strong need for the implementation of controlled vocabularies in these museums. Originality/value This study is a rare piece of research which examines subject searching in online museums; the 21 search criteria and their use in the analysis of the complete set of online collections of a country represents a considerable and unique contribution to the fields of knowledge organization and information retrieval of cultural heritage. Its particular value lies in showing how the needs of end users, many of which are documented and reflected in international standards and guidelines, should be taken into account in designing search tools for these museums; especially so in subject searching, which is the most complex and yet the most common type of search. Much effort has been invested into digitizing cultural heritage collections, but access to them is hindered by poor search functionality. This study identifies which are the most important aspects to improve.

0.0091642765 = product of:
  0.036657106 = sum of:
    0.036657106 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036657106 = score(doc=1098,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 1098, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1098)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this work is to find out how different library classification systems and linguistic ontologies arrange a particular domain of interest and what are the limitations for information retrieval. We use knowledge representation techniques and languages for construction of a domain specific ontology. This ontology would help not only in problem solving, but it would demonstrate the ease with which complex queries can be handled using principles of domain ontology, thereby facilitating better information retrieval. Facet-based methodology has been used for ontology formalization for quite some time. Ontology formalization involves different steps such as, Identification of the terminology, Analysis, Synthesis, Standardization and Ordering. Firstly, for purposes of conceptualization OntoUML has been used which is a well-founded and established language for Ontology driven Conceptual Modelling. Phase transformation of "the same mode" has been subsequently obtained by OWL-DL using Protégé software. The final OWL ontology contains a total of around 232 axioms. These axioms comprise 148 logical axioms, 76 declaration axioms and 43 classes. These axioms glue together classes, properties and data types as well as a constraint. Such data clustering cannot be achieved through general use of simple classification schemes. Hence it has been observed and established that domain ontology using faceted principles provide better information retrieval with enhanced precision. This ontology should be seen not only as an alternative of the existing classification system but as a Knowledge Base (KB) system which can handle complex queries well, which is the ultimate purpose of any classification system or indexing system. In this paper, we try to understand how ontology-based information retrieval systems can prove its utility as a useful tool in the field of library science with a particular focus on the education domain.

0.008100153 = product of:
  0.03240061 = sum of:
    0.03240061 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03240061 = score(doc=5915,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 5915, 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=5915)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The outcome of exploratory information retrieval is not only dependent on the effectiveness of individual responses to a set of queries, but also on relevant information retrieved during the entire exploratory search session. We study the effect of search assistance, operationalized as an interactive faceted query suggestion, for both whole-session effectiveness and engagement through interactive faceted query suggestion. A user experiment is reported, where users performed exploratory search tasks, comparing interactive faceted query suggestion and a control condition with only conventional typed-query interaction. Data comprised of interaction and search logs show that the availability of interactive faceted query suggestion substantially improves whole-session effectiveness by increasing recall without sacrificing precision. The increased engagement with interactive faceted query suggestion is targeted to direct situated navigation around the initial query scope, but is not found to improve individual queries on average. The results imply that research in exploratory search should focus on measuring and designing tools that engage users with directed situated navigation support for improving whole-session performance.

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.008100153 = product of:
  0.03240061 = sum of:
    0.03240061 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03240061 = score(doc=216,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 216, 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=216)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Term position feature is widely and successfully used in IR and Web search engines, to enhance the retrieval effectiveness. This feature is essentially used for two purposes: to capture query terms proximity or to boost the weight of terms appearing in some parts of a document. In this paper, we are interested in this second category. We propose two novel query-independent techniques based on absolute term positions in a document, whose goal is to boost the weight of terms appearing in the beginning of a document. The first one considers only the earliest occurrence of a term in a document. The second one takes into account all term positions in a document. We formalize each of these two techniques as a document model based on term position, and then we incorporate it into a basic language model (LM). Two smoothing techniques, Dirichlet and Jelinek-Mercer, are considered in the basic LM. Experiments conducted on three TREC test collections show that our model, especially the version based on all term positions, achieves significant improvements over the baseline LMs, and it also often performs better than two state-of-the-art baseline models, the chronological term rank model and the Markov random field model.

0.008100153 = product of:
  0.03240061 = sum of:
    0.03240061 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03240061 = score(doc=558,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 558, 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=558)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Web search is commonly used by fact checking systems as a source of evidence for claim verification. In this work, we demonstrate that the task of retrieving pages useful for fact checking, called evidential pages, is indeed different from the task of retrieving topically relevant pages that are typically optimized by search engines; thus, it should be handled differently. We conduct a comprehensive study on the performance of retrieving evidential pages over a test collection we developed for the task of re-ranking Web pages by usefulness for fact-checking. Results show that pages (retrieved by a commercial search engine) that are topically relevant to a claim are not always useful for verifying it, and that the engine's performance in retrieving evidential pages is weakly correlated with retrieval of topically relevant pages. Additionally, we identify types of evidence in evidential pages and some linguistic cues that can help predict page usefulness. Moreover, preliminary experiments show that a retrieval model leveraging those cues has a higher performance compared to the search engine. Finally, we show that existing systems have a long way to go to support effective fact checking. To that end, our work provides insights to guide design of better future systems for the task.

0.008100153 = product of:
  0.03240061 = sum of:
    0.03240061 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03240061 = score(doc=669,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 669, 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=669)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

With the emerging needs of creating fairness-aware solutions for search and recommendation systems, a daunting challenge exists of evaluating such solutions. While many of the traditional information retrieval (IR) metrics can capture the relevance, diversity, and novelty for the utility with respect to users, they are not suitable for inferring whether the presented results are fair from the perspective of responsible information exposure. On the other hand, existing fairness metrics do not account for user utility or do not measure it adequately. To address this problem, we propose a new metric called FAIR. By unifying standard IR metrics and fairness measures into an integrated metric, this metric offers a new perspective for evaluating fairness-aware ranking results. Based on this metric, we developed an effective ranking algorithm that jointly optimized user utility and fairness. The experimental results showed that our FAIR metric could highlight results with good user utility and fair information exposure. We showed how FAIR related to a set of existing utility and fairness metrics and demonstrated the effectiveness of our FAIR-based algorithm. We believe our work opens up a new direction of pursuing a metric for evaluating and implementing the FAIR systems.

0.008100153 = product of:
  0.03240061 = sum of:
    0.03240061 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03240061 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 767, 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=767)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The study analyses contributions to Library and Information Science (LIS) by researchers representing various disciplines. How are such contributions associated with the choice of research topics and methodology? The study employs a quantitative content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 2015. Each article is seen as a contribution to LIS by the authors' disciplines, which are inferred from their affiliations. The unit of analysis is the article-discipline pair. Of the contribution instances, the share of LIS is one third. Computer Science contributes one fifth and Business and Economics one sixth. The latter disciplines dominate the contributions in information retrieval, information seeking, and scientific communication indicating strong influences in LIS. Correspondence analysis reveals three clusters of research, one focusing on traditional LIS with contributions from LIS and Humanities and survey-type research; another on information retrieval with contributions from Computer Science and experimental research; and the third on scientific communication with contributions from Natural Sciences and Medicine and citation analytic research. The strong differentiation of scholarly contributions in LIS hints to the fragmentation of LIS as a discipline.

0.008018742 = product of:
  0.03207497 = sum of:
    0.03207497 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03207497 = score(doc=5899,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 5899, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5899)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

S.R. Ranganathan is credited with the introduction of the term "facet" in the field of knowledge organization towards the middle of the twentieth century. Facets have traditionally been used to organize document collections and to express complex subjects. In the digital world, they act as filters to facilitate navigation and improve retrieval. But the popularity of the term does not mean that a definitive characterization of the concept has been established. Indeed, several conceptualizations of the facet co-exist. This article provides an overview of formal and informal definitions found in the literature of knowledge organization, followed by a discussion of four common conceptualizations of the facet: process vs product, nature vs function, object vs subject and organization vs navigation.

0.008018742 = product of:
  0.03207497 = sum of:
    0.03207497 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03207497 = score(doc=572,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We consider use of ontological background knowledge in intelligent information systems and analyze directions of their reduction in compliance with specifics of particular user task. Such reduction is aimed at simplification of knowledge processing without loss of significant information. We propose methods of generation of task thesauri based on domain ontology that contain such subset of ontological concepts and relations that can be used in task solving. Combinatorial optimization is used for minimization of task thesaurus. In this approach, semantic similarity estimates are used for determination of concept significance for user task. Some practical examples of optimized thesauri application for semantic retrieval and competence analysis demonstrate efficiency of proposed approach.

0.008018742 = product of:
  0.03207497 = sum of:
    0.03207497 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03207497 = score(doc=587,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 587, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=587)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

RILM Index is a partially controlled vocabulary designated to index scholarly writings on music and related subjects, created and curated by Répertoire International de Littérature Musicale (RILM). It has been developed over 50 years and has served the music community as a primary research tool. This analytical review of the characteristics of RILM Index reveals several issues, related to the Index's history, that impinge on its usefulness. An in-progress thesaurus is presented as a possible solution to these issues. RILM Index, despite being imperfect, provides a foundation for developing an ontological structure for both indexing and information retrieval purposes.

0.008018742 = product of:
  0.03207497 = sum of:
    0.03207497 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03207497 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the face of the ever-increasing document volume, libraries around the globe are more and more exploring (semi-) automated approaches to subject indexing. This helps sustain bibliographic objectives, enrich metadata, and establish more connections across documents from various collections, effectively leading to improved information retrieval and access. However, generally accepted automated approaches that are functional in operative systems are lacking. This article aims to provide an overview of basic principles used for automated subject indexing, major approaches in relation to their possible application in actual library systems, existing working examples, as well as related challenges calling for further research.

0.008018742 = product of:
  0.03207497 = sum of:
    0.03207497 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03207497 = score(doc=735,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 735, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=735)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Metadata creation is the process of recording metadata, that is data essential to the identification and retrieval of any type of resource, including bibliographic resources. Metadata capable of identifying characteristics of an entity have always existed. However, the triggering event that has rewritten and enhanced their value is the digital revolution. Cataloging is configured as an action of creating metadata. While cataloging produces a catalog, that is a list of records relating to various types of resources, ordered and searchable, according to a defined criterion, the metadata process produces the metadata of the resources.