Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0037332894 = product of:
  0.02799967 = sum of:
    0.022018395 = weight(_text_:und in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022018395 = score(doc=266,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
    0.005981274 = product of:
      0.011962548 = sum of:
        0.011962548 = weight(_text_:information in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011962548 = score(doc=266,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

Abstract

Seit einigen Jahren hat sich in Europa eine Initiative zur Bewertung von Information Retrieval in mehrsprachigen Kontexten etabliert. Das Cross Language Evaluation forum (CLEF) wird von der EU gefördert und kooperiert mit Evaluierungsprojekten in den USA (TREC) und in Japan (NTCIR). Dieser Artikel stellt das CLEF in den Rahmen der anderen internationalen Initiativen. Neue Entwicklungen sowohl bei den Information Retrieval Systemen als auch bei den Evaluierungsmethoden werden aufgezeit. Die hohe Anzahl von Teilnehmern aus Forschungsinstitutionen und der Industrie beweist die steigende Bedeutung des sprachübergreifenden Retrievals

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 53(2002) H.2, S.82-89

5.58136E-4 = product of:
  0.0083720395 = sum of:
    0.0083720395 = product of:
      0.016744079 = sum of:
        0.016744079 = weight(_text_:information in 6298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016744079 = score(doc=6298,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 6298, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6298)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Series

The Kluwer International series on information retrieval

Source

Cross-language information retrieval. Ed.: G. Grefenstette

5.58136E-4 = product of:
  0.0083720395 = sum of:
    0.0083720395 = product of:
      0.016744079 = sum of:
        0.016744079 = weight(_text_:information in 6302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016744079 = score(doc=6302,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 6302, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Series

The Kluwer International series on information retrieval

Source

Cross-language information retrieval. Ed.: G. Grefenstette

3.9466174E-4 = product of:
  0.005919926 = sum of:
    0.005919926 = product of:
      0.011839852 = sum of:
        0.011839852 = weight(_text_:information in 2023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011839852 = score(doc=2023,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2023, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Is Cross-Language answer finding harder than Monolingual answer finding for users? In this paper we provide initial quantitative and qualitative evidence to answer this question. In our study, which involves 16 users searching questions under four different system conditions, we find that interactive cross-language answer finding is not substantially harder (in terms of accuracy) than its monolingual counterpart, using general purpose Machine Translation systems and standard Information Retrieval machinery, although it takes more time. We have also seen that users need more context to provide accurate answers (full documents) than what is usually considered by systems (paragraphs or passages). Finally, we also discuss the limitations of standard evaluation methodologies for interactive Information Retrieval experiments in the case of cross-language question answering.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenbereichs: Evaluation of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.66-81

2.79068E-4 = product of:
  0.0041860198 = sum of:
    0.0041860198 = product of:
      0.0083720395 = sum of:
        0.0083720395 = weight(_text_:information in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0083720395 = score(doc=2342,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2342, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2342)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of the current paper is to test whether query translation is beneficial in web retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - The language pairs were Finnish-Swedish, English-German and Finnish-French. A total of 12-18 participants were recruited for each language pair. Each participant performed four retrieval tasks. The author's aim was to compare the performance of the translated queries with that of the target language queries. Thus, the author asked participants to formulate a source language query and a target language query for each task. The source language queries were translated into the target language utilizing a dictionary-based system. In English-German, also machine translation was utilized. The author used Google as the search engine. Findings - The results differed depending on the language pair. The author concluded that the dictionary coverage had an effect on the results. On average, the results of query-translation were better than in the traditional laboratory tests. Originality/value - This research shows that query translation in web is beneficial especially for users with moderate and non-active language skills. This is valuable information for developers of cross-language information retrieval systems.

2.3255666E-4 = product of:
  0.0034883497 = sum of:
    0.0034883497 = product of:
      0.0069766995 = sum of:
        0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 5601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069766995 = score(doc=5601,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5601, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Purpose - To present a method for creating a comparable document collection from two document collections in different languages. Design/methodology/approach - The best query keys were extracted from a Finnish source collection (articles of the newspaper Aamulehti) with the relative average term frequency formula. The keys were translated into English with a dictionary-based query translation program. The resulting lists of words were used as queries that were run against the target collection (Los Angeles Times articles) with the nearest neighbor method. The documents were aligned with unrestricted and date-restricted alignment schemes, which were also combined. Findings - The combined alignment scheme was found the best, when the relatedness of the document pairs was assessed with a five-degree relevance scale. Of the 400 document pairs, roughly 40 percent were highly or fairly related and 75 percent included at least lexical similarity. Research limitations/implications - The number of alignment pairs was small due to the short common time period of the two collections, and their geographical (and thus, topical) remoteness. In future, our aim is to build larger comparable corpora in various languages and use them as source of translation knowledge for the purposes of cross-language information retrieval (CLIR). Practical implications - Readily available parallel corpora are scarce. With this method, two unrelated document collections can relatively easily be aligned to create a CLIR resource. Originality/value - The method can be applied to weakly linked collections and morphologically complex languages, such as Finnish.