Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Airio, E."
  • × theme_ss:"Multilinguale Probleme"
  1. Airio, E.; Kettunen, K.: Does dictionary based bilingual retrieval work in a non-normalized index? (2009) 0.00 
    0.0023448137 = product of:
  0.0070344405 = sum of:
    0.0070344405 = weight(_text_:s in 4224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070344405 = score(doc=4224,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04014573 = queryNorm
        0.16116315 = fieldWeight in 4224, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4224)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Many operational IR indexes are non-normalized, i.e. no lemmatization or stemming techniques, etc. have been employed in indexing. This poses a challenge for dictionary-based cross-language retrieval (CLIR), because translations are mostly lemmas. In this study, we face the challenge of dictionary-based CLIR in a non-normalized index. We test two optional approaches: FCG (Frequent Case Generation) and s-gramming. The idea of FCG is to automatically generate the most frequent inflected forms for a given lemma. FCG has been tested in monolingual retrieval and has been shown to be a good method for inflected retrieval, especially for highly inflected languages. S-gramming is an approximate string matching technique (an extension of n-gramming). The language pairs in our tests were English-Finnish, English-Swedish, Swedish-Finnish and Finnish-Swedish. Both our approaches performed quite well, but the results varied depending on the language pair. S-gramming and FCG performed quite equally in all the other language pairs except Finnish-Swedish, where s-gramming outperformed FCG.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 45(2009) no.6, S.703-713
  2. Airio, E.: Who benefits from CLIR in web retrieval? (2008) 0.00 
    0.0010486324 = product of:
  0.003145897 = sum of:
    0.003145897 = weight(_text_:s in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003145897 = score(doc=2342,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04014573 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2342, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2342)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.5, S.760-778

Themes