Search (34 results, page 2 of 2)

0.009770754 = product of:
  0.04885377 = sum of:
    0.04885377 = weight(_text_:22 in 1466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04885377 = score(doc=1466,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1466, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1466)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.009770754 = product of:
  0.04885377 = sum of:
    0.04885377 = weight(_text_:22 in 2151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04885377 = score(doc=2151,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2151, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2151)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society: July 22 - 25, 1995, University of Pittsburgh / ed. by Johanna D. Moore and Jill Fain Lehmann

0.008693925 = product of:
  0.043469626 = sum of:
    0.043469626 = weight(_text_:index in 3478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043469626 = score(doc=3478,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.1931181 = fieldWeight in 3478, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3478)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

One of the problems faced by users of databases containing textual documents is the difficulty in retrieving relevant results due to the diverse vocabulary used in queries and contained in relevant documents, especially when there are only a small number of relevant documents. This problem is known as the Vocabulary Gap. The PIKES team have constructed a small test collection of 331 articles extracted from a blog and a Gold Standard for 35 queries selected from the blog's search log so the results of different approaches to semantic search can be compared. So far, prior approaches include recognising Named Entities in documents and queries, and relations including temporal relations, and represent them as `semantic layers' in a retrieval system index. In this work, we take two different approaches that do not involve Named Entity Recognition. In the first approach, we process an unannotated version of the PIKES document collection using Latent Semantic Analysis and use a combination of query coordination and automatic relevance feedback with which we outperform prior work. However, this approach is highly dependent on the underlying collection, and is not necessarily scalable to massive collections. In our second approach, we use an LSA Model generated by SEMILAR from a Wikipedia dump to generate a Term Similarity Matrix (TSM). We automatically expand the queries in the PIKES test collection with related terms from the TSM and submit them to a term-by-document matrix derived by indexing the PIKES collection using the Vector Space Model. Coupled with a combination of query coordination and automatic relevance feedback we also outperform prior work with this approach. The advantage of the second approach is that it is independent of the underlying document collection.

0.008374932 = product of:
  0.04187466 = sum of:
    0.04187466 = weight(_text_:22 in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04187466 = score(doc=2419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2419, 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=2419)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

16.11.2008 16:22:48

0.008374932 = product of:
  0.04187466 = sum of:
    0.04187466 = weight(_text_:22 in 1464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04187466 = score(doc=1464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1464, 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=1464)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.008374932 = product of:
  0.04187466 = sum of:
    0.04187466 = weight(_text_:22 in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04187466 = score(doc=2230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2230, 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=2230)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (ACM SIGIR '96), Zürich, Switzerland, August 18-22, 1996. Eds.: H.P. Frei et al

0.0076071853 = product of:
  0.038035925 = sum of:
    0.038035925 = weight(_text_:index in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038035925 = score(doc=2768,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.16897833 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Subject searching is the most common but also the most conflictive searching for end user. The aim of this paper is to check how users expressions match subject headings and to prove if knowledge structure used in online catalogs enhances searching effectiveness. A bibliographic revision about difficulties in subject access and proposed methods to improve it is also presented. For the empirical analysis, transaction logs from two university libraries, online catalogs (CISNE and FAMA) were collected. Results show that more than a quarter of user queries are effective due to an alphabetical subject index approach and browsing through hypertextual links. 1. Introduction Since the 1980's, online public access catalogs (OPAC's) have become usual way to access bibliographic information. During the last two decades the technological development has helped to extend their use, making feasible the access for a whole of users that is getting more and more extensive and heterogeneous, and also to incorporate information resources in electronic formats and to interconnect systems. However, technology seems to have developed faster than our knowledge about the tasks where it has been applied and than the evolution of our capacities for adapting to it. The conceptual model of OPAC has been hardly modified recently, and for interacting with them, users still need to combine the same skills and basic knowledge than at the beginning of its introduction (Borgman, 1986, 2000): a) conceptual knowledge to translate the information need into an appropriate query because of a well-designed mental model of the system, b) semantic and syntactic knowledge to be able to implement that query (access fields, searching type, Boolean logic, etc.) and c) basic technical skills in computing. At present many users have the essential technical skills to make use, with more or less expertise, of a computer. This number is substantially reduced when it is referred to the conceptual, semantic and syntactic knowledge that is necessary to achieve a moderately satisfactory search. An added difficulty arises in subject searching, as users should concrete their unknown information needs in terms that the information retrieval system can understand. Many researches have focused an unskilled searchers' difficulties to enter an effective query. The mental models influence, users assumption about characteristics, structure, contents and operation of the system they interact with have been analysed (Dillon, 2000; Dimitroff, 2000). Another issue that implies difficulties is vocabulary: how to find the right terms to implement a query and to modify it as the case may be. Terminology and expressions characteristics used in searching (Bates, 1993), the match between user terms and the subject headings from the catalog (Carlyle, 1989; Drabensttot, 1996; Drabensttot & Vizine-Goetz, 1994), the incidence of spelling errors (Drabensttot and Weller, 1996; Ferl and Millsap, 1996; Walker and Jones, 1987), users problems

0.00697911 = product of:
  0.03489555 = sum of:
    0.03489555 = weight(_text_:22 in 5697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03489555 = score(doc=5697,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5697, 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=5697)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.1996 13:14:10

0.00697911 = product of:
  0.03489555 = sum of:
    0.03489555 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03489555 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1428, 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=1428)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2003 19:35:46

0.00697911 = product of:
  0.03489555 = sum of:
    0.03489555 = weight(_text_:22 in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03489555 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 56, 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=56)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 16:32:43

0.00697911 = product of:
  0.03489555 = sum of:
    0.03489555 = weight(_text_:22 in 1343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03489555 = score(doc=1343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1343, 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=1343)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 8.2014 17:07:50

0.005583288 = product of:
  0.02791644 = sum of:
    0.02791644 = weight(_text_:22 in 1163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02791644 = score(doc=1163,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1163, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1163)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Link Analysis, Counterterrorism, and Security, SIAM Data Mining Conference, Bethesda, MD, 20-22 April, 2006. [http://www.siam.org/meetings/sdm06/workproceed/Link%20Analysis/15.pdf]

0.005583288 = product of:
  0.02791644 = sum of:
    0.02791644 = weight(_text_:22 in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02791644 = score(doc=1626,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1626, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1626)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.005433704 = product of:
  0.027168518 = sum of:
    0.027168518 = weight(_text_:index in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027168518 = score(doc=1211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.12069881 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

From the user's perspective, however, it is still difficult to use current information retrieval systems. Users frequently have problems expressing their information needs and translating those needs into queries. This is partly due to the fact that information needs cannot be expressed appropriately in systems terms. It is not unusual for users to input search terms that are different from the index terms information systems use. Various methods have been proposed to help users choose search terms and articulate queries. One widely used approach is to incorporate into the information system a thesaurus-like component that represents both the important concepts in a particular subject area and the semantic relationships among those concepts. Unfortunately, the development and use of thesauri is not without its own problems. The thesaurus employed in a specific information system has often been developed for a general subject area and needs significant enhancement to be tailored to the information system where it is to be used. This thesaurus development process, if done manually, is both time consuming and labor intensive. Usage of a thesaurus in searching is complex and may raise barriers for the user. For illustration purposes, let us consider two scenarios of thesaurus usage. In the first scenario the user inputs a search term and the thesaurus then displays a matching set of related terms. Without an overview of the thesaurus - and without the ability to see the matching terms in the context of other terms - it may be difficult to assess the quality of the related terms in order to select the correct term. In the second scenario the user browses the whole thesaurus, which is organized as in an alphabetically ordered list. The problem with this approach is that the list may be long, and neither does it show users the global semantic relationship among all the listed terms.