Search (118 results, page 1 of 6)

0.083440766 = sum of:
  0.062212672 = product of:
    0.24885069 = sum of:
      0.24885069 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.24885069 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.4427806 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02122809 = product of:
    0.04245618 = sum of:
      0.04245618 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04245618 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.

Date

8. 1.2013 10:22:32

0.046337895 = sum of:
  0.020986568 = product of:
    0.08394627 = sum of:
      0.08394627 = weight(_text_:authors in 2764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08394627 = score(doc=2764,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 2764, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2764)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.025351325 = product of:
    0.05070265 = sum of:
      0.05070265 = weight(_text_:b in 2764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05070265 = score(doc=2764,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 2764, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2764)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The ACL Anthology is a large collection of research papers in computational linguistics. Citation data were obtained using text extraction from a collection of PDF files with significant manual postprocessing performed to clean up the results. Manual annotation of the references was then performed to complete the citation network. We analyzed the networks of paper citations, author citations, and author collaborations in an attempt to identify the most central papers and authors. The analysis includes general network statistics, PageRank, metrics across publication years and venues, the impact factor and h-index, as well as other measures.

0.04329878 = product of:
  0.08659756 = sum of:
    0.08659756 = sum of:
      0.051217414 = weight(_text_:b in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.051217414 = score(doc=190,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.2767939 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
      0.03538015 = weight(_text_:22 in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03538015 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 190, 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=190)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Classification

Spr B 68 / Computerlinguistik

Date

14. 4.2007 10:04:22

SBB

Spr B 68 / Computerlinguistik

0.040145673 = sum of:
  0.027762622 = product of:
    0.11105049 = sum of:
      0.11105049 = weight(_text_:authors in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11105049 = score(doc=3807,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.46641657 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.012383052 = product of:
    0.024766104 = sum of:
      0.024766104 = weight(_text_:22 in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024766104 = score(doc=3807,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Academic authors tend to define terms that meet their own needs. Knowledge Management (KM) is a term that comes to mind and is examined in this study. Lexicographical research identified KM terms used by authors from 1996 to 2006 in academic outlets to define KM. Data were collected based on strict criteria which included that definitions should be unique instances. From 2006 onwards, these authors could not identify new unique instances of definitions with repetitive usage of such definition instances. Analysis revealed that KM is directly defined by People (Person and Organisation), Processes (Codify, Share, Leverage, and Process) and Contextualised Content (Information). The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach The aim of this paper is to add to the body of knowledge in the KM discipline and supply KM practitioners and scholars with insight into what is commonly regarded to be KM so as to reignite the debate on what one could consider as KM. The lexicon used by KM scholars was evaluated though the application of lexicographical research methods as extended though Knowledge Discovery and Text Analysis methods. Findings By simplifying term relationships through the application of lexicographical research methods, as extended though Knowledge Discovery and Text Analysis methods, it was found that KM is directly defined by People (Person and Organisation), Processes (Codify, Share, Leverage, Process) and Contextualised Content (Information). One would therefore be able to indicate that KM, from an academic point of view, refers to people processing contextualised content.
Research limitations/implications In total, 42 definitions were identified spanning a period of 11 years. This represented the first use of KM through the estimated apex of terms used. From 2006 onwards definitions were used in repetition, and all definitions that were considered to repeat were therefore subsequently excluded as not being unique instances. All definitions listed are by no means complete and exhaustive. The definitions are viewed outside the scope and context in which they were originally formulated and then used to review the key concepts in the definitions themselves. Social implications When the authors refer to the aforementioned discussion of KM content as well as the presentation of the method followed in this paper, the authors may have a few implications for future research in KM. First the research validates ideas presented by the OECD in 2005 pertaining to KM. It also validates that through the evolution of KM, the authors ended with a description of KM that may be seen as a standardised description. If the authors as academics and practitioners, for example, refer to KM as the same construct and/or idea, it has the potential to speculatively, distinguish between what KM may or may not be. Originality/value By simplifying the term used to define KM, by focusing on the most common definitions, the paper assist in refocusing KM by reconsidering the dimensions that is the most common in how it has been defined over time. This would hopefully assist in reigniting discussions about KM and how it may be used to the benefit of an organisation.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.039718196 = sum of:
  0.017988488 = product of:
    0.07195395 = sum of:
      0.07195395 = weight(_text_:authors in 3457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07195395 = score(doc=3457,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3457, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3457)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.021729708 = product of:
    0.043459415 = sum of:
      0.043459415 = weight(_text_:b in 3457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043459415 = score(doc=3457,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 3457, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3457)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Arabic has a complex structure, which makes it difficult to apply natural language processing (NLP). Much research on Arabic NLP (ANLP) does exist; however, it is not as mature as that of other languages. Finding Arabic roots is an important step toward conducting effective research on most of ANLP applications. The authors have studied and compared six root-finding algorithms with success rates of over 90%. All algorithms of this study did not use the same testing corpus and/or benchmarking measures. They unified the testing process by implementing their own algorithm descriptions and building a corpus out of 3823 triliteral roots, applying 73 triliteral patterns, and with 18 affixes, producing around 27.6 million words. They tested the algorithms with the generated corpus and have obtained interesting results; they offer to share the corpus freely for benchmarking and ANLP research.

0.039718196 = sum of:
  0.017988488 = product of:
    0.07195395 = sum of:
      0.07195395 = weight(_text_:authors in 5219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07195395 = score(doc=5219,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 5219, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5219)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.021729708 = product of:
    0.043459415 = sum of:
      0.043459415 = weight(_text_:b in 5219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043459415 = score(doc=5219,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5219, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5219)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Publishing articles in high-impact English journals is difficult for scholars around the world, especially for non-native English-speaking scholars (NNESs), most of whom struggle with proficiency in English. To uncover the differences in English scientific writing between native English-speaking scholars (NESs) and NNESs, we collected a large-scale data set containing more than 150,000 full-text articles published in PLoS between 2006 and 2015. We divided these articles into three groups according to the ethnic backgrounds of the first and corresponding authors, obtained by Ethnea, and examined the scientific writing styles in English from a two-fold perspective of linguistic complexity: (a) syntactic complexity, including measurements of sentence length and sentence complexity; and (b) lexical complexity, including measurements of lexical diversity, lexical density, and lexical sophistication. The observations suggest marginal differences between groups in syntactical and lexical complexity.

0.035798166 = product of:
  0.07159633 = sum of:
    0.07159633 = sum of:
      0.03621618 = weight(_text_:b in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03621618 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 1171, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1171)
      0.03538015 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03538015 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1171, 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=1171)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

23.11.2023 19:07:22

0.03244818 = sum of:
  0.010493284 = product of:
    0.041973136 = sum of:
      0.041973136 = weight(_text_:authors in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041973136 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.17628889 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.021954894 = product of:
    0.043909788 = sum of:
      0.043909788 = weight(_text_:b in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043909788 = score(doc=5089,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.23730135 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures - Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues (ICCS 2000) brings together a wide range of researchers and practitioners working with conceptual structures. During the last few years, the ICCS conference series has considerably widened its scope on different kinds of conceptual structures, stimulating research across domain boundaries. We hope that this stimulation is further enhanced by ICCS 2000 joining the long tradition of conferences in Darmstadt with extensive, lively discussions. This volume consists of contributions presented at ICCS 2000, complementing the volume "Conceptual Structures: Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues" (B. Ganter, G.W. Mineau (Eds.), LNAI 1867, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg 2000). It contains submissions reviewed by the program committee, and position papers. We wish to express our appreciation to all the authors of submitted papers, to the general chair, the program chair, the editorial board, the program committee, and to the additional reviewers for making ICCS 2000 a valuable contribution in the knowledge processing research field. Special thanks go to the local organizers for making the conference an enjoyable and inspiring event. We are grateful to Darmstadt University of Technology, the Ernst Schröder Center for Conceptual Knowledge Processing, the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Technology, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Land Hessen, and NaviCon GmbH for their generous support

Content

Concepts & Language: Knowledge organization by procedures of natural language processing. A case study using the method GABEK (J. Zelger, J. Gadner) - Computer aided narrative analysis using conceptual graphs (H. Schärfe, P. 0hrstrom) - Pragmatic representation of argumentative text: a challenge for the conceptual graph approach (H. Irandoust, B. Moulin) - Conceptual graphs as a knowledge representation core in a complex language learning environment (G. Angelova, A. Nenkova, S. Boycheva, T. Nikolov) - Conceptual Modeling and Ontologies: Relationships and actions in conceptual categories (Ch. Landauer, K.L. Bellman) - Concept approximations for formal concept analysis (J. Saquer, J.S. Deogun) - Faceted information representation (U. Priß) - Simple concept graphs with universal quantifiers (J. Tappe) - A framework for comparing methods for using or reusing multiple ontologies in an application (J. van ZyI, D. Corbett) - Designing task/method knowledge-based systems with conceptual graphs (M. Leclère, F.Trichet, Ch. Choquet) - A logical ontology (J. Farkas, J. Sarbo) - Algorithms and Tools: Fast concept analysis (Ch. Lindig) - A framework for conceptual graph unification (D. Corbett) - Visual CP representation of knowledge (H.D. Pfeiffer, R.T. Hartley) - Maximal isojoin for representing software textual specifications and detecting semantic anomalies (Th. Charnois) - Troika: using grids, lattices and graphs in knowledge acquisition (H.S. Delugach, B.E. Lampkin) - Open world theorem prover for conceptual graphs (J.E. Heaton, P. Kocura) - NetCare: a practical conceptual graphs software tool (S. Polovina, D. Strang) - CGWorld - a web based workbench for conceptual graphs management and applications (P. Dobrev, K. Toutanova) - Position papers: The edition project: Peirce's existential graphs (R. Mülller) - Mining association rules using formal concept analysis (N. Pasquier) - Contextual logic summary (R Wille) - Information channels and conceptual scaling (K.E. Wolff) - Spatial concepts - a rule exploration (S. Rudolph) - The TEXT-TO-ONTO learning environment (A. Mädche, St. Staab) - Controlling the semantics of metadata on audio-visual documents using ontologies (Th. Dechilly, B. Bachimont) - Building the ontological foundations of a terminology from natural language to conceptual graphs with Ribosome, a knowledge extraction system (Ch. Jacquelinet, A. Burgun) - CharGer: some lessons learned and new directions (H.S. Delugach) - Knowledge management using conceptual graphs (W.K. Pun)

0.031106336 = product of:
  0.062212672 = sum of:
    0.062212672 = product of:
      0.24885069 = sum of:
        0.24885069 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24885069 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4427806 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN

0.028972944 = product of:
  0.05794589 = sum of:
    0.05794589 = product of:
      0.11589178 = sum of:
        0.11589178 = weight(_text_:b in 4860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11589178 = score(doc=4860,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.6263131 = fieldWeight in 4860, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4860)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.028972944 = product of:
  0.05794589 = sum of:
    0.05794589 = product of:
      0.11589178 = sum of:
        0.11589178 = weight(_text_:b in 722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11589178 = score(doc=722,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.6263131 = fieldWeight in 722, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=722)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Editor

Ortner, E., B. Schienmann u. H. Thoma

0.02830412 = product of:
  0.05660824 = sum of:
    0.05660824 = product of:
      0.11321648 = sum of:
        0.11321648 = weight(_text_:22 in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11321648 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 22(1987), S.79-108

0.025351325 = product of:
  0.05070265 = sum of:
    0.05070265 = product of:
      0.1014053 = sum of:
        0.1014053 = weight(_text_:b in 1842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1014053 = score(doc=1842,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.54802394 = fieldWeight in 1842, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1842)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

b

0.025058715 = product of:
  0.05011743 = sum of:
    0.05011743 = sum of:
      0.025351325 = weight(_text_:b in 1616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025351325 = score(doc=1616,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.13700598 = fieldWeight in 1616, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1616)
      0.024766104 = weight(_text_:22 in 1616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024766104 = score(doc=1616,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1616, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1616)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The information available in languages other than English in the World Wide Web is increasing significantly. According to a report from Computer Economics in 1999, 54% of Internet users are English speakers ("English Will Dominate Web for Only Three More Years," Computer Economics, July 9, 1999, http://www.computereconomics. com/new4/pr/pr990610.html). However, it is predicted that there will be only 60% increase in Internet users among English speakers verses a 150% growth among nonEnglish speakers for the next five years. By 2005, 57% of Internet users will be non-English speakers. A report by CNN.com in 2000 showed that the number of Internet users in China had been increased from 8.9 million to 16.9 million from January to June in 2000 ("Report: China Internet users double to 17 million," CNN.com, July, 2000, http://cnn.org/2000/TECH/computing/07/27/ china.internet.reut/index.html). According to Nielsen/ NetRatings, there was a dramatic leap from 22.5 millions to 56.6 millions Internet users from 2001 to 2002. China had become the second largest global at-home Internet population in 2002 (US's Internet population was 166 millions) (Robyn Greenspan, "China Pulls Ahead of Japan," Internet.com, April 22, 2002, http://cyberatias.internet.com/big-picture/geographics/article/0,,5911_1013841,00. html). All of the evidences reveal the importance of crosslingual research to satisfy the needs in the near future. Digital library research has been focusing in structural and semantic interoperability in the past. Searching and retrieving objects across variations in protocols, formats and disciplines are widely explored (Schatz, B., & Chen, H. (1999). Digital libraries: technological advances and social impacts. IEEE Computer, Special Issue an Digital Libraries, February, 32(2), 45-50.; Chen, H., Yen, J., & Yang, C.C. (1999). International activities: development of Asian digital libraries. IEEE Computer, Special Issue an Digital Libraries, 32(2), 48-49.). However, research in crossing language boundaries, especially across European languages and Oriental languages, is still in the initial stage. In this proposal, we put our focus an cross-lingual semantic interoperability by developing automatic generation of a cross-lingual thesaurus based an English/Chinese parallel corpus. When the searchers encounter retrieval problems, Professional librarians usually consult the thesaurus to identify other relevant vocabularies. In the problem of searching across language boundaries, a cross-lingual thesaurus, which is generated by co-occurrence analysis and Hopfield network, can be used to generate additional semantically relevant terms that cannot be obtained from dictionary. In particular, the automatically generated cross-lingual thesaurus is able to capture the unknown words that do not exist in a dictionary, such as names of persons, organizations, and events. Due to Hong Kong's unique history background, both English and Chinese are used as official languages in all legal documents. Therefore, English/Chinese cross-lingual information retrieval is critical for applications in courts and the government. In this paper, we develop an automatic thesaurus by the Hopfield network based an a parallel corpus collected from the Web site of the Department of Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government. Experiments are conducted to measure the precision and recall of the automatic generated English/Chinese thesaurus. The result Shows that such thesaurus is a promising tool to retrieve relevant terms, especially in the language that is not the same as the input term. The direct translation of the input term can also be retrieved in most of the cases.

0.024766104 = product of:
  0.04953221 = sum of:
    0.04953221 = product of:
      0.09906442 = sum of:
        0.09906442 = weight(_text_:22 in 3164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09906442 = score(doc=3164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Computational linguistics. 22(1996) no.2, S.217-248

0.024766104 = product of:
  0.04953221 = sum of:
    0.04953221 = product of:
      0.09906442 = sum of:
        0.09906442 = weight(_text_:22 in 4506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09906442 = score(doc=4506,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4506, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4506)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

8.10.2000 11:52:22

0.024766104 = product of:
  0.04953221 = sum of:
    0.04953221 = product of:
      0.09906442 = sum of:
        0.09906442 = weight(_text_:22 in 6672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09906442 = score(doc=6672,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6672, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6672)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

31. 7.1996 9:22:19

0.024766104 = product of:
  0.04953221 = sum of:
    0.04953221 = product of:
      0.09906442 = sum of:
        0.09906442 = weight(_text_:22 in 1179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09906442 = score(doc=1179,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1179, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1179)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

31. 7.1996 9:22:19

0.024766104 = product of:
  0.04953221 = sum of:
    0.04953221 = product of:
      0.09906442 = sum of:
        0.09906442 = weight(_text_:22 in 3117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09906442 = score(doc=3117,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3117, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3117)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

28. 2.1999 10:48:22

0.024766104 = product of:
  0.04953221 = sum of:
    0.04953221 = product of:
      0.09906442 = sum of:
        0.09906442 = weight(_text_:22 in 1079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09906442 = score(doc=1079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1079, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27. 1.2023 16:22:55