Search (51 results, page 3 of 3)

0.0055321725 = product of:
  0.027660862 = sum of:
    0.027660862 = weight(_text_:21 in 5962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027660862 = score(doc=5962,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16162895 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052173212 = queryNorm
        0.17113805 = fieldWeight in 5962, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5962)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

21. 2.1997 19:37:24

0.0055321725 = product of:
  0.027660862 = sum of:
    0.027660862 = weight(_text_:21 in 85) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027660862 = score(doc=85,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16162895 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052173212 = queryNorm
        0.17113805 = fieldWeight in 85, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=85)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

3. 3.2007 19:21:17

0.0055321725 = product of:
  0.027660862 = sum of:
    0.027660862 = weight(_text_:21 in 2432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027660862 = score(doc=2432,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16162895 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052173212 = queryNorm
        0.17113805 = fieldWeight in 2432, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2432)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 11th European conference, ECDL 2007 / Budapest, Hungary, September 16-21, 2007, proceedings. Eds.: L. Kovacs et al

0.0055321725 = product of:
  0.027660862 = sum of:
    0.027660862 = weight(_text_:21 in 430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027660862 = score(doc=430,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16162895 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052173212 = queryNorm
        0.17113805 = fieldWeight in 430, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=430)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

With the advance of the semantic Web, increasing amounts of data are available in a structured and machine-understandable form. This opens opportunities for users to employ semantic queries instead of simple keyword-based ones to accurately express the information need. However, constructing semantic queries is a demanding task for human users [11]. To compose a valid semantic query, a user has to (1) master a query language (e.g., SPARQL) and (2) acquire sufficient knowledge about the ontology or the schema of the data source. While there are systems which support this task with visual tools [21, 26] or natural language interfaces [3, 13, 14, 18], the process of query construction can still be complex and time consuming. According to [24], users prefer keyword search, and struggle with the construction of semantic queries although being supported with a natural language interface. Several keyword search approaches have already been proposed to ease information seeking on semantic data [16, 32, 35] or databases [1, 31]. However, keyword queries lack the expressivity to precisely describe the user's intent. As a result, ranking can at best put query intentions of the majority on top, making it impossible to take the intentions of all users into consideration.

0.0055321725 = product of:
  0.027660862 = sum of:
    0.027660862 = weight(_text_:21 in 431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027660862 = score(doc=431,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16162895 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052173212 = queryNorm
        0.17113805 = fieldWeight in 431, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=431)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

27. 9.2012 20:21:17

0.0055321725 = product of:
  0.027660862 = sum of:
    0.027660862 = weight(_text_:21 in 1820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027660862 = score(doc=1820,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16162895 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052173212 = queryNorm
        0.17113805 = fieldWeight in 1820, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1820)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Query-biased summaries help users to identify which items returned by a search system should be read in full. In this article, we study the generation of query-biased summaries as a sentence ranking approach, and methods to evaluate their effectiveness. Using sentence-level relevance assessments from the TREC Novelty track, we gauge the benefits of query expansion to minimize the vocabulary mismatch problem between informational requests and sentence ranking methods. Our results from an intrinsic evaluation show that query expansion significantly improves the selection of short relevant sentences (5-13 words) between 7% and 11%. However, query expansion does not lead to improvements for sentences of medium (14-20 words) and long (21-29 words) lengths. In a separate crowdsourcing study, we analyze whether a summary composed of sentences ranked using query expansion was preferred over summaries not assisted by query expansion, rather than assessing sentences individually. We found that participants chose summaries aided by query expansion around 60% of the time over summaries using an unexpanded query. We conclude that query expansion techniques can benefit the selection of sentences for the construction of query-biased summaries at the summary level rather than at the sentence ranking level.

0.0055321725 = product of:
  0.027660862 = sum of:
    0.027660862 = weight(_text_:21 in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027660862 = score(doc=2299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16162895 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052173212 = queryNorm
        0.17113805 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

5.11.2015 21:43:18

0.0055321725 = product of:
  0.027660862 = sum of:
    0.027660862 = weight(_text_:21 in 2380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027660862 = score(doc=2380,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16162895 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052173212 = queryNorm
        0.17113805 = fieldWeight in 2380, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2380)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

28.11.2015 13:33:21

0.004948125 = product of:
  0.024740625 = sum of:
    0.024740625 = weight(_text_:22 in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024740625 = score(doc=1633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1827017 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052173212 = queryNorm
        0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1633, 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=1633)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.004425738 = product of:
  0.02212869 = sum of:
    0.02212869 = weight(_text_:21 in 276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02212869 = score(doc=276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16162895 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052173212 = queryNorm
        0.13691044 = fieldWeight in 276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=276)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

21. 3.2002 19:29:27

0.004425738 = product of:
  0.02212869 = sum of:
    0.02212869 = weight(_text_:21 in 5105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02212869 = score(doc=5105,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16162895 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052173212 = queryNorm
        0.13691044 = fieldWeight in 5105, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5105)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Relation extraction aims at finding meaningful relationships between two named entities from within unstructured textual content. In this paper, we define the problem of information extraction as a matrix completion problem where we employ the notion of universal schemas formed as a collection of patterns derived from open information extraction systems as well as additional features derived from grammatical clause patterns and statistical topic models. One of the challenges with earlier work that employ matrix completion methods is that such approaches require a sufficient number of observed relation instances to be able to make predictions. However, in practice there is often insufficient number of explicit evidence supporting each relation type that could be used within the matrix model. Hence, existing work suffer from a low recall. In our work, we extend the work in the state of the art by proposing novel ways of integrating two sets of features, i.e., topic models and grammatical clause structures, for alleviating the low recall problem. More specifically, we propose that it is possible to (1) employ grammatical clause information from textual sentences to serve as an implicit indication of relation type and argument similarity. The basis for this is that it is likely that similar relation types and arguments are observed within similar grammatical structures, and (2) benefit from statistical topic models to determine similarity between relation types and arguments. We employ statistical topic models to determine relation type and argument similarity based on their co-occurrence within the same topics. We have performed extensive experiments based on both gold standard and silver standard datasets. The experiments show that our approach has been able to address the low recall problem in existing methods, by showing an improvement of 21% on recall and 8% on f-measure over the state of the art baseline.