Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

Blair, D.C.; Maron, M.E.: Full-text information retrieval : further analysis and clarification (1990) 0.03

0.030660793 = product of:
  0.04599119 = sum of:
    0.019966545 = weight(_text_:information in 2046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019966545 = score(doc=2046,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 2046, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2046)
    0.026024643 = product of:
      0.052049287 = sum of:
        0.052049287 = weight(_text_:management in 2046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052049287 = score(doc=2046,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17470726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.29792285 = fieldWeight in 2046, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2046)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Source: Information processing and management. 26(1990), S.437-447

Kristensen, J.: Expanding end-users' query statements for free text searching with a search-aid thesaurus (1993) 0.03

0.026762083 = product of:
  0.040143125 = sum of:
    0.01411848 = weight(_text_:information in 6621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01411848 = score(doc=6621,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 6621, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6621)
    0.026024643 = product of:
      0.052049287 = sum of:
        0.052049287 = weight(_text_:management in 6621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052049287 = score(doc=6621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17470726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.29792285 = fieldWeight in 6621, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Source: Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.6, S.733-744

Turtle, H.; Flood, J.: Query evaluation : strategies and optimizations (1995) 0.03

0.026762083 = product of:
  0.040143125 = sum of:
    0.01411848 = weight(_text_:information in 4087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01411848 = score(doc=4087,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4087, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4087)
    0.026024643 = product of:
      0.052049287 = sum of:
        0.052049287 = weight(_text_:management in 4087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052049287 = score(doc=4087,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17470726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.29792285 = fieldWeight in 4087, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4087)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Source: Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.6, S.831-850

Pirkola, A.; Jarvelin, K.: ¬The effect of anaphor and ellipsis resolution on proximity searching in a text database (1995) 0.02
```
0.021032736 = product of:
  0.031549104 = sum of:
    0.015283704 = weight(_text_:information in 4088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015283704 = score(doc=4088,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 4088, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4088)
    0.016265402 = product of:
      0.032530803 = sum of:
        0.032530803 = weight(_text_:management in 4088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032530803 = score(doc=4088,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17470726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 4088, 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=4088)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
```
Abstract

So far, methods for ellipsis and anaphor resolution have been developed and the effects of anaphor resolution have been analyzed in the context of statistical information retrieval of scientific abstracts. No significant improvements has been observed. Analyzes the effects of ellipsis and anaphor resolution on proximity searching in a full text database. Anaphora and ellipsis are classified on the basis of the type of their correlates / antecedents rather than, as traditional, on the basis of their own linguistic type. The classification differentiates proper names and common nouns of basic words, compound words, and phrases. The study was carried out in a newspaper article database containing 55.000 full text articles. A set of 154 keyword pairs in different categories was created. Human resolution of keyword ellipsis and anaphora was performed to identify sentences and paragraphs which would match proximity searches after resolution. Findings indicate that ellipsis and anaphor resolution is most relevant for proper name phrases and only marginal in the other keyword categories. Therefore the recall effect of restricted resolution of proper name phrases only was analyzed for keyword pairs containing at least 1 proper name phrase. Findings indicate a recall increase of 38.2% in sentence searches, and 28.8% in paragraph searches when proper name ellipsis were resolved. The recall increase was 17.6% sentence searches, and 19.8% in paragraph searches when proper name anaphora were resolved. Some simple and computationally justifiable resolution method might be developed only for proper name phrases to support keyword based full text information retrieval. Discusses elements of such a method

Source

Information processing and management. 32(1996) no.2, S.199-216

Bernstein, L.M.; Williamson, R.E.: Testing of a natural language retrieval system for a full text knowledge base (1984) 0.01

0.0082357805 = product of:
  0.02470734 = sum of:
    0.02470734 = weight(_text_:information in 1803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02470734 = score(doc=1803,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1803, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1803)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source: Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 35(1984), S.235-247

Wildemuth, B.M.: Measures of success in searching a full-text fact base (1990) 0.01

0.007132395 = product of:
  0.021397185 = sum of:
    0.021397185 = weight(_text_:information in 2050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021397185 = score(doc=2050,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 2050, 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=2050)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Imprint: Medford, NJ : Learned Information Inc.
Source: ASIS'90: Information in the year 2000, from research to applications. Proc. of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Toronto, Canada, 4.-8.11.1990. Ed. by Diana Henderson

Blair, D.C.; Maron, M.E.: ¬An evaluation of retrieval effectiveness for a full-text document-retrieval system (1985) 0.01

0.0058827 = product of:
  0.017648099 = sum of:
    0.017648099 = weight(_text_:information in 1345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017648099 = score(doc=1345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1345, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1345)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote: Vgl. auch : Salton, G.: Another look ... Comm. ACM 29(1986) S.S.648-656; Blair, D.C.: Full text retrieval ... Int. Class. 13(1986) S.18-23: Blair, D.C., M.E. Maron: Full-text information retrieval ... Inf. proc. man. 26(1990) S.437-447.

Blair, D.C.: Full text retrieval : Evaluation and implications (1986) 0.00
```
0.0049916366 = product of:
  0.014974909 = sum of:
    0.014974909 = weight(_text_:information in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014974909 = score(doc=2047,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2047, 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=2047)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Abstract

Recently, a detailed evaluation of a large, operational full-text document retrieval system was reported in the literature. Values of precision and recall were estimated usind traditional statistical sampling methods and blind evaluation procedures. The results of this evaluation demonstrated that the system tested was retrieving less then 20% of the relevant documents when the searchers believed it was retrieving over 75% of the relevant documents. This evaluation is described including some data not reported in the original article. Also discussed are the implications which this study has for how the subjects of documents should be represented, as well as the importance of rigorous retrieval evaluations for the furtherhance of information retrieval research

Footnote

Vgl.: Blair, D.C., M.E. Maron: An evaluation ... Comm. ACM 28(1985) S.280-299; Salton, G.: Another look ... Comm. ACM 29(1986) S.648-656; Blair, D.C., M.E. Maron: Full-text information retrieval ... Inf. Proc. Man. 26(1990) S.437-447.

Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Years