Search (112 results, page 1 of 6)

0.070633814 = product of:
  0.14126763 = sum of:
    0.14126763 = sum of:
      0.08511985 = weight(_text_:n in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08511985 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.38110018 = fieldWeight in 4685, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4685)
      0.05614778 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05614778 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4685, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4685)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 8.2011 13:33:22

Type

n

0.062417716 = sum of:
  0.04113775 = product of:
    0.164551 = sum of:
      0.164551 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.164551 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.43917897 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.021279963 = product of:
    0.042559925 = sum of:
      0.042559925 = weight(_text_:n in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042559925 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.19055009 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F1627&ei=tAtYUYrBNoHKtQb3l4GYBw&usg=AFQjCNHeaxKkKU3-u54LWxMNYGXaaDLCGw&sig2=8WykXWQoDKjDSdGtAakH2Q&bvm=bv.44442042,d.Yms.

0.04762715 = sum of:
  0.021027196 = product of:
    0.084108785 = sum of:
      0.084108785 = weight(_text_:authors in 3462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.084108785 = score(doc=3462,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 3462, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3462)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.026599953 = product of:
    0.053199906 = sum of:
      0.053199906 = weight(_text_:n in 3462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053199906 = score(doc=3462,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 3462, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3462)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Discovering relationships among concepts and categories is crucial in various information systems. The authors' objective was to discover such relationships among document categories. Traditionally, such relationships are represented in the form of a concept hierarchy, grouping some categories under the same parent category. Although the nature of hierarchy supports the identification of categories that may share the same parent, not all of these categories have a relationship with each other - other than sharing the same parent. However, some non-sibling relationships exist that although are related to each other are not identified as such. The authors identify and build a relationship network (relationship-net) with categories as the vertices and relationships as the edges of this network. They demonstrate that using a relationship-net, some nonobvious category relationships are detected. Their approach capitalizes on the misclassification information generated during the process of text classification to identify potential relationships among categories and automatically generate relationship-nets. Their results demonstrate a statistically significant improvement over the current approach by up to 73% on 20 News groups 20NG, up to 68% on 17 categories in the Open Directories Project (ODP17), and more than twice on ODP46 and Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval (SIGIR) data sets. Their results also indicate that using misclassification information stemming from passage classification as opposed to document classification statistically significantly improves the results on 20NG (8%), ODP17 (5%), ODP46 (73%), and SIGIR (117%) with respect to F1 measure. By assigning weights to relationships and by performing feature selection, results are further optimized.

0.044146135 = product of:
  0.08829227 = sum of:
    0.08829227 = sum of:
      0.053199906 = weight(_text_:n in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053199906 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
      0.03509236 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03509236 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4553, 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=4553)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16.11.2018 14:22:01

0.042559925 = product of:
  0.08511985 = sum of:
    0.08511985 = product of:
      0.1702397 = sum of:
        0.1702397 = weight(_text_:n in 319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1702397 = score(doc=319,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.76220036 = fieldWeight in 319, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=319)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

n

0.037239935 = product of:
  0.07447987 = sum of:
    0.07447987 = product of:
      0.14895974 = sum of:
        0.14895974 = weight(_text_:n in 6051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14895974 = score(doc=6051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.6669253 = fieldWeight in 6051, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.034639306 = sum of:
  0.02060236 = product of:
    0.08240944 = sum of:
      0.08240944 = weight(_text_:authors in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08240944 = score(doc=1634,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.34896153 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.014036945 = product of:
    0.02807389 = sum of:
      0.02807389 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02807389 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1634, 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=1634)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - Ontologies are prone to wide semantic variability due to subjective points of view of their composers. The purpose of this paper is to propose a new approach for maximal unification of diverse ontologies for controversial domains by their relations. Design/methodology/approach - Effective matching or unification of multiple ontologies for a specific domain is crucial for the success of many semantic web applications, such as semantic information retrieval and organization, document tagging, summarization and search. To this end, numerous automatic and semi-automatic techniques were proposed in the past decade that attempt to identify similar entities, mostly classes, in diverse ontologies for similar domains. Apparently, matching individual entities cannot result in full integration of ontologies' semantics without matching their inter-relations with all other-related classes (and instances). However, semantic matching of ontological relations still constitutes a major research challenge. Therefore, in this paper the authors propose a new paradigm for assessment of maximal possible matching and unification of ontological relations. To this end, several unification rules for ontological relations were devised based on ontological reference rules, and lexical and textual entailment. These rules were semi-automatically implemented to extend a given ontology with semantically matching relations from another ontology for a similar domain. Then, the ontologies were unified through these similar pairs of relations. The authors observe that these rules can be also facilitated to reveal the contradictory relations in different ontologies. Findings - To assess the feasibility of the approach two experiments were conducted with different sets of multiple personal ontologies on controversial domains constructed by trained subjects. The results for about 50 distinct ontology pairs demonstrate a good potential of the methodology for increasing inter-ontology agreement. Furthermore, the authors show that the presented methodology can lead to a complete unification of multiple semantically heterogeneous ontologies. Research limitations/implications - This is a conceptual study that presents a new approach for semantic unification of ontologies by a devised set of rules along with the initial experimental evidence of its feasibility and effectiveness. However, this methodology has to be fully automatically implemented and tested on a larger dataset in future research. Practical implications - This result has implication for semantic search, since a richer ontology, comprised of multiple aspects and viewpoints of the domain of knowledge, enhances discoverability and improves search results. Originality/value - To the best of the knowledge, this is the first study to examine and assess the maximal level of semantic relation-based ontology unification.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.034639306 = sum of:
  0.02060236 = product of:
    0.08240944 = sum of:
      0.08240944 = weight(_text_:authors in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08240944 = score(doc=179,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.34896153 = fieldWeight in 179, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=179)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.014036945 = product of:
    0.02807389 = sum of:
      0.02807389 = weight(_text_:22 in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02807389 = score(doc=179,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 179, 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=179)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The open science movement calls for transparent and retraceable research processes. While infrastructures to support these practices in qualitative research are lacking, the design needs to consider different approaches and workflows. The paper bases on the definition of ontologies as shared conceptualizations of knowledge (Borst, 1999). The authors argue that participatory design is a good way to create these shared conceptualizations by giving domain experts and future users a voice in the design process via interviews, workshops and observations. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a novel approach for creating ontologies in the field of open science using participatory design. As a case study the creation of an ontology for qualitative coding schemas is presented. Coding schemas are an important result of qualitative research, and reuse can yield great potential for open science making qualitative research more transparent, enhance sharing of coding schemas and teaching of qualitative methods. The participatory design process consisted of three parts: a requirement analysis using interviews and an observation, a design phase accompanied by interviews and an evaluation phase based on user tests as well as interviews. Findings The research showed several positive outcomes due to participatory design: higher commitment of users, mutual learning, high quality feedback and better quality of the ontology. However, there are two obstacles in this approach: First, contradictive answers by the interviewees, which needs to be balanced; second, this approach takes more time due to interview planning and analysis. Practical implications The implication of the paper is in the long run to decentralize the design of open science infrastructures and to involve parties affected on several levels. Originality/value In ontology design, several methods exist by using user-centered design or participatory design doing workshops. In this paper, the authors outline the potentials for participatory design using mainly interviews in creating an ontology for open science. The authors focus on close contact to researchers in order to build the ontology upon the expert's knowledge.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.030853312 = product of:
  0.061706625 = sum of:
    0.061706625 = product of:
      0.2468265 = sum of:
        0.2468265 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2468265 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43917897 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, 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=400)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.023036236 = product of:
  0.046072472 = sum of:
    0.046072472 = product of:
      0.092144944 = sum of:
        0.092144944 = weight(_text_:n in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.092144944 = score(doc=103,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.41255307 = fieldWeight in 103, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There have been many attempts at classifying the semantic modification relations (R) of N + N compounds but this work has not led to the acceptance of a definitive scheme, so that devising a reusable classification is a worthwhile aim. The scope of this undertaking is extended to other binominal lexemes, i.e. units that contain two thing-morphemes without explicitly stating R, like prepositional units, N + relational adjective units, etc. The 25-relation taxonomy of Bourque (2014) was tested against over 15,000 binominal lexemes from 106 languages and extended to a 29-relation scheme ("Bourque2") through the introduction of two new reversible relations. Bourque2 is then mapped onto Hatcher's (1960) four-relation scheme (extended by the addition of a fifth relation, similarity , as "Hatcher2"). This results in a two-tier system usable at different degrees of granularities. On account of its semantic proximity to compounding, metonymy is then taken into account, following Janda's (2011) suggestion that it plays a role in word formation; Peirsman and Geeraerts' (2006) inventory of 23 metonymic patterns is mapped onto Bourque2, confirming the identity of metonymic and binominal modification relations. Finally, Blank's (2003) and Koch's (2001) work on lexical semantics justifies the addition to the scheme of a third, superordinate level which comprises the three Aristotelean principles of similarity, contiguity and contrast.

0.022690257 = sum of:
  0.01040793 = product of:
    0.04163172 = sum of:
      0.04163172 = weight(_text_:authors in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04163172 = score(doc=1633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.17628889 = fieldWeight in 1633, 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=1633)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.012282327 = product of:
    0.024564654 = sum of:
      0.024564654 = weight(_text_:22 in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024564654 = score(doc=1633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to improve the conceptual-based search by incorporating structural ontological information such as concepts and relations. Generally, Semantic-based information retrieval aims to identify relevant information based on the meanings of the query terms or on the context of the terms and the performance of semantic information retrieval is carried out through standard measures-precision and recall. Higher precision leads to the (meaningful) relevant documents obtained and lower recall leads to the less coverage of the concepts. Design/methodology/approach - In this paper, the authors enhance the existing ontology-based indexing proposed by Kohler et al., by incorporating sibling information to the index. The index designed by Kohler et al., contains only super and sub-concepts from the ontology. In addition, in our approach, we focus on two tasks; query expansion and ranking of the expanded queries, to improve the efficiency of the ontology-based search. The aforementioned tasks make use of ontological concepts, and relations existing between those concepts so as to obtain semantically more relevant search results for a given query. Findings - The proposed ontology-based indexing technique is investigated by analysing the coverage of concepts that are being populated in the index. Here, we introduce a new measure called index enhancement measure, to estimate the coverage of ontological concepts being indexed. We have evaluated the ontology-based search for the tourism domain with the tourism documents and tourism-specific ontology. The comparison of search results based on the use of ontology "with and without query expansion" is examined to estimate the efficiency of the proposed query expansion task. The ranking is compared with the ORank system to evaluate the performance of our ontology-based search. From these analyses, the ontology-based search results shows better recall when compared to the other concept-based search systems. The mean average precision of the ontology-based search is found to be 0.79 and the recall is found to be 0.65, the ORank system has the mean average precision of 0.62 and the recall is found to be 0.51, while the concept-based search has the mean average precision of 0.56 and the recall is found to be 0.42. Practical implications - When the concept is not present in the domain-specific ontology, the concept cannot be indexed. When the given query term is not available in the ontology then the term-based results are retrieved. Originality/value - In addition to super and sub-concepts, we incorporate the concepts present in same level (siblings) to the ontological index. The structural information from the ontology is determined for the query expansion. The ranking of the documents depends on the type of the query (single concept query, multiple concept queries and concept with relation queries) and the ontological relations that exists in the query and the documents. With this ontological structural information, the search results showed us better coverage of concepts with respect to the query.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.021279963 = product of:
  0.042559925 = sum of:
    0.042559925 = product of:
      0.08511985 = sum of:
        0.08511985 = weight(_text_:n in 3979) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08511985 = score(doc=3979,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.38110018 = fieldWeight in 3979, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3979)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.021279963 = product of:
  0.042559925 = sum of:
    0.042559925 = product of:
      0.08511985 = sum of:
        0.08511985 = weight(_text_:n in 4680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08511985 = score(doc=4680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.38110018 = fieldWeight in 4680, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4680)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

n

0.021279963 = product of:
  0.042559925 = sum of:
    0.042559925 = product of:
      0.08511985 = sum of:
        0.08511985 = weight(_text_:n in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08511985 = score(doc=4686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.38110018 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

n

0.021279963 = product of:
  0.042559925 = sum of:
    0.042559925 = product of:
      0.08511985 = sum of:
        0.08511985 = weight(_text_:n in 2862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08511985 = score(doc=2862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.38110018 = fieldWeight in 2862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Beitrag für: Workshop on the Applications of Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods, (eds) Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R., Guarino, N., and Uschold, M. European Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2000, Berlin.

0.020568876 = product of:
  0.04113775 = sum of:
    0.04113775 = product of:
      0.164551 = sum of:
        0.164551 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.164551 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43917897 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Information Technologies. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.cmu.edu%2F~cx%2Fpapers%2Fknowledge_based_text_representation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0SaTSvhWLTh__Uz_HtOtl3.

0.01880901 = product of:
  0.03761802 = sum of:
    0.03761802 = product of:
      0.07523604 = sum of:
        0.07523604 = weight(_text_:n in 4236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07523604 = score(doc=4236,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.33684817 = fieldWeight in 4236, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper describes the OntoNotes, a multilingual (English, Chinese and Arabic) corpus with large-scale semantic annotations, including predicate-argument structure, word senses, ontology linking, and coreference. The underlying semantic model of OntoNotes involves word senses that are grouped into so-called sense pools, i.e., sets of near-synonymous senses of words. Such information is useful for many applications, including query expansion for information retrieval (IR) systems, (near-)duplicate detection for text summarization systems, and alternative word selection for writing support systems. Although a sense pool provides a set of near-synonymous senses of words, there is still no knowledge about whether two words in a pool are interchangeable in practical use. Therefore, this paper devises an unsupervised algorithm that incorporates Google n-grams and a statistical test to determine whether a word in a pool can be substituted by other words in the same pool. The n-gram features are used to measure the degree of context mismatch for a substitution. The statistical test is then applied to determine whether the substitution is adequate based on the degree of mismatch. The proposed method is compared with a supervised method, namely Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA). Experimental results show that the proposed unsupervised method can achieve comparable performance with the supervised method.

0.018619968 = product of:
  0.037239935 = sum of:
    0.037239935 = product of:
      0.07447987 = sum of:
        0.07447987 = weight(_text_:n in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07447987 = score(doc=3060,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.33346266 = fieldWeight in 3060, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3060)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

n

0.018619968 = product of:
  0.037239935 = sum of:
    0.037239935 = product of:
      0.07447987 = sum of:
        0.07447987 = weight(_text_:n in 3066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07447987 = score(doc=3066,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.33346266 = fieldWeight in 3066, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3066)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a general-purpose language for representing information in the Web. This document defines an XML syntax for RDF called RDF/XML in terms of Namespaces in XML, the XML Information Set and XML Base. The formal grammar for the syntax is annotated with actions generating triples of the RDF graph as defined in RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax. The triples are written using the N-Triples RDF graph serializing format which enables more precise recording of the mapping in a machine processable form. The mappings are recorded as tests cases, gathered and published in RDF Test Cases.

0.018619968 = product of:
  0.037239935 = sum of:
    0.037239935 = product of:
      0.07447987 = sum of:
        0.07447987 = weight(_text_:n in 4684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07447987 = score(doc=4684,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.33346266 = fieldWeight in 4684, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4684)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

n