Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

Rapke, K.: Automatische Indexierung von Volltexten für die Gruner+Jahr Pressedatenbank (2001) 0.04
```
0.039774638 = product of:
  0.09943659 = sum of:
    0.08609679 = weight(_text_:inc in 5863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08609679 = score(doc=5863,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2573945 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0549803 = idf(docFreq=281, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042509552 = queryNorm
        0.33449355 = fieldWeight in 5863, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0549803 = idf(docFreq=281, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5863)
    0.013339795 = product of:
      0.02667959 = sum of:
        0.02667959 = weight(_text_:management in 5863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02667959 = score(doc=5863,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 5863, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5863)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
```
Abstract

Retrievaltests sind die anerkannteste Methode, um neue Verfahren der Inhaltserschließung gegenüber traditionellen Verfahren zu rechtfertigen. Im Rahmen einer Diplomarbeit wurden zwei grundsätzlich unterschiedliche Systeme der automatischen inhaltlichen Erschließung anhand der Pressedatenbank des Verlagshauses Gruner + Jahr (G+J) getestet und evaluiert. Untersucht wurde dabei natürlichsprachliches Retrieval im Vergleich zu Booleschem Retrieval. Bei den beiden Systemen handelt es sich zum einen um Autonomy von Autonomy Inc. und DocCat, das von IBM an die Datenbankstruktur der G+J Pressedatenbank angepasst wurde. Ersteres ist ein auf natürlichsprachlichem Retrieval basierendes, probabilistisches System. DocCat demgegenüber basiert auf Booleschem Retrieval und ist ein lernendes System, das aufgrund einer intellektuell erstellten Trainingsvorlage indexiert. Methodisch geht die Evaluation vom realen Anwendungskontext der Textdokumentation von G+J aus. Die Tests werden sowohl unter statistischen wie auch qualitativen Gesichtspunkten bewertet. Ein Ergebnis der Tests ist, dass DocCat einige Mängel gegenüber der intellektuellen Inhaltserschließung aufweist, die noch behoben werden müssen, während das natürlichsprachliche Retrieval von Autonomy in diesem Rahmen und für die speziellen Anforderungen der G+J Textdokumentation so nicht einsetzbar ist

Source

Information Research & Content Management: Orientierung, Ordnung und Organisation im Wissensmarkt; 23. DGI-Online-Tagung der DGI und 53. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis e.V. DGI, Frankfurt am Main, 8.-10.5.2001. Proceedings. Hrsg.: R. Schmidt
Rapke, K.: Automatische Indexierung von Volltexten für die Gruner+Jahr Pressedatenbank (2001) 0.02
```
0.020663233 = product of:
  0.103316166 = sum of:
    0.103316166 = weight(_text_:inc in 6386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.103316166 = score(doc=6386,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2573945 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0549803 = idf(docFreq=281, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042509552 = queryNorm
        0.40139228 = fieldWeight in 6386, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0549803 = idf(docFreq=281, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6386)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
```
Abstract

Retrieval Tests sind die anerkannteste Methode, um neue Verfahren der Inhaltserschließung gegenüber traditionellen Verfahren zu rechtfertigen. Im Rahmen einer Diplomarbeit wurden zwei grundsätzlich unterschiedliche Systeme der automatischen inhaltlichen Erschließung anhand der Pressedatenbank des Verlagshauses Gruner + Jahr (G+J) getestet und evaluiert. Untersucht wurde dabei natürlichsprachliches Retrieval im Vergleich zu Booleschem Retrieval. Bei den beiden Systemen handelt es sich zum einen um Autonomy von Autonomy Inc. und DocCat, das von IBM an die Datenbankstruktur der G+J Pressedatenbank angepasst wurde. Ersteres ist ein auf natürlichsprachlichem Retrieval basierendes, probabilistisches System. DocCat demgegenüber basiert auf Booleschem Retrieval und ist ein lernendes System, das auf Grund einer intellektuell erstellten Trainingsvorlage indexiert. Methodisch geht die Evaluation vom realen Anwendungskontext der Textdokumentation von G+J aus. Die Tests werden sowohl unter statistischen wie auch qualitativen Gesichtspunkten bewertet. Ein Ergebnis der Tests ist, dass DocCat einige Mängel gegenüber der intellektuellen Inhaltserschließung aufweist, die noch behoben werden müssen, während das natürlichsprachliche Retrieval von Autonomy in diesem Rahmen und für die speziellen Anforderungen der G+J Textdokumentation so nicht einsetzbar ist

Lorenz, S.: Konzeption und prototypische Realisierung einer begriffsbasierten Texterschließung (2006) 0.00

0.0034556747 = product of:
  0.017278373 = sum of:
    0.017278373 = product of:
      0.034556746 = sum of:
        0.034556746 = weight(_text_:22 in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034556746 = score(doc=1746,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14886121 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1746, 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=1746)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 22. 3.2015 9:17:30

Snajder, J.; Dalbelo Basic, B.D.; Tadic, M.: Automatic acquisition of inflectional lexica for morphological normalisation (2008) 0.00

0.003201551 = product of:
  0.016007755 = sum of:
    0.016007755 = product of:
      0.03201551 = sum of:
        0.03201551 = weight(_text_:management in 2910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03201551 = score(doc=2910,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 2910, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2910)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source: Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.5, S.1720-1731

Li, W.; Wong, K.-F.; Yuan, C.: Toward automatic Chinese temporal information extraction (2001) 0.00
```
0.002667959 = product of:
  0.013339795 = sum of:
    0.013339795 = product of:
      0.02667959 = sum of:
        0.02667959 = weight(_text_:management in 6029) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02667959 = score(doc=6029,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 6029, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6029)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
```
Abstract

Over the past few years, temporal information processing and temporal database management have increasingly become hot topics. Nevertheless, only a few researchers have investigated these areas in the Chinese language. This lays down the objective of our research: to exploit Chinese language processing techniques for temporal information extraction and concept reasoning. In this article, we first study the mechanism for expressing time in Chinese. On the basis of the study, we then design a general frame structure for maintaining the extracted temporal concepts and propose a system for extracting time-dependent information from Hong Kong financial news. In the system, temporal knowledge is represented by different types of temporal concepts (TTC) and different temporal relations, including absolute and relative relations, which are used to correlate between action times and reference times. In analyzing a sentence, the algorithm first determines the situation related to the verb. This in turn will identify the type of temporal concept associated with the verb. After that, the relevant temporal information is extracted and the temporal relations are derived. These relations link relevant concept frames together in chronological order, which in turn provide the knowledge to fulfill users' queries, e.g., for question-answering (i.e., Q&A) applications

Ahlgren, P.; Kekäläinen, J.: Indexing strategies for Swedish full text retrieval under different user scenarios (2007) 0.00

0.002667959 = product of:
  0.013339795 = sum of:
    0.013339795 = product of:
      0.02667959 = sum of:
        0.02667959 = weight(_text_:management in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02667959 = score(doc=896,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 896, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=896)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source: Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.1, S.81-102

Witschel, H.F.: Terminology extraction and automatic indexing : comparison and qualitative evaluation of methods (2005) 0.00
```
0.002667959 = product of:
  0.013339795 = sum of:
    0.013339795 = product of:
      0.02667959 = sum of:
        0.02667959 = weight(_text_:management in 1842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02667959 = score(doc=1842,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 1842, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1842)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
```
Abstract

Many terminology engineering processes involve the task of automatic terminology extraction: before the terminology of a given domain can be modelled, organised or standardised, important concepts (or terms) of this domain have to be identified and fed into terminological databases. These serve in further steps as a starting point for compiling dictionaries, thesauri or maybe even terminological ontologies for the domain. For the extraction of the initial concepts, extraction methods are needed that operate on specialised language texts. On the other hand, many machine learning or information retrieval applications require automatic indexing techniques. In Machine Learning applications concerned with the automatic clustering or classification of texts, often feature vectors are needed that describe the contents of a given text briefly but meaningfully. These feature vectors typically consist of a fairly small set of index terms together with weights indicating their importance. Short but meaningful descriptions of document contents as provided by good index terms are also useful to humans: some knowledge management applications (e.g. topic maps) use them as a set of basic concepts (topics). The author believes that the tasks of terminology extraction and automatic indexing have much in common and can thus benefit from the same set of basic algorithms. It is the goal of this paper to outline some methods that may be used in both contexts, but also to find the discriminating factors between the two tasks that call for the variation of parameters or application of different techniques. The discussion of these methods will be based on statistical, syntactical and especially morphological properties of (index) terms. The paper is concluded by the presentation of some qualitative and quantitative results comparing statistical and morphological methods.

Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Languages

Types

Themes