Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.031659015 = product of:
  0.06331803 = sum of:
    0.06331803 = sum of:
      0.03249465 = weight(_text_:p in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03249465 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045500398 = queryNorm
          0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
      0.03082338 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03082338 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15933464 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045500398 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06

0.022746254 = product of:
  0.045492508 = sum of:
    0.045492508 = product of:
      0.090985015 = sum of:
        0.090985015 = weight(_text_:p in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.090985015 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.55615246 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.011373127 = product of:
  0.022746254 = sum of:
    0.022746254 = product of:
      0.045492508 = sum of:
        0.045492508 = weight(_text_:p in 3901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045492508 = score(doc=3901,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 3901, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3901)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009748395 = product of:
  0.01949679 = sum of:
    0.01949679 = product of:
      0.03899358 = sum of:
        0.03899358 = weight(_text_:p in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03899358 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 326, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=326)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There is a well-known gap between systems-oriented information retrieval (IR) and user-oriented IR, which cognitive IR seeks to bridge. It is therefore interesting to analyze approaches at the level of frameworks, models, and study designs. This article is an exercise in such an analysis, focusing on two significant approaches to IR: the lab IR approach and P. Ingwersen's (1996) cognitive IR approach. The article focuses on their research frameworks, models, hypotheses, laws and theories, study designs, and possible contributions. The two approaches are quite different, which becomes apparent in the use of Independent, controlled, and dependent variables in the study designs of each approach. Thus, each approach is capable of contributing very differently to understanding and developing information access. The article also discusses integrating the approaches at the study-design level.

0.009748395 = product of:
  0.01949679 = sum of:
    0.01949679 = product of:
      0.03899358 = sum of:
        0.03899358 = weight(_text_:p in 1040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03899358 = score(doc=1040,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 1040, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1040)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009748395 = product of:
  0.01949679 = sum of:
    0.01949679 = product of:
      0.03899358 = sum of:
        0.03899358 = weight(_text_:p in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03899358 = score(doc=3593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009247013 = product of:
  0.018494027 = sum of:
    0.018494027 = product of:
      0.036988053 = sum of:
        0.036988053 = weight(_text_:22 in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036988053 = score(doc=2230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15933464 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.009247013 = product of:
  0.018494027 = sum of:
    0.018494027 = product of:
      0.036988053 = sum of:
        0.036988053 = weight(_text_:22 in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036988053 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15933464 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3589, 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=3589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Information searching in practice seldom is an end in itself. In work, work task (WT) performance forms the context, which information searching should serve. Therefore, information retrieval (IR) systems development/evaluation should take the WT context into account. The present paper analyzes how WT features: task complexity and task types, affect information searching in authentic work: the types of information needs, search processes, and search media. We collected data on 22 information professionals in authentic work situations in three organization types: city administration, universities, and companies. The data comprise 286 WTs and 420 search tasks (STs). The data include transaction logs, video recordings, daily questionnaires, interviews. and observation. The data were analyzed quantitatively. Even if the participants used a range of search media, most STs were simple throughout the data, and up to 42% of WTs did not include searching. WT's effects on STs are not straightforward: different WT types react differently to WT complexity. Due to the simplicity of authentic searching, the WT/ST types in interactive IR experiments should be reconsidered.

0.008123662 = product of:
  0.016247325 = sum of:
    0.016247325 = product of:
      0.03249465 = sum of:
        0.03249465 = weight(_text_:p in 4395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03249465 = score(doc=4395,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 4395, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4395)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - To show that stem generation compares well with lemmatization as a morphological tool for a highly inflectional language for IR purposes in a best-match retrieval system. Design/methodology/approach - Effects of three different morphological methods - lemmatization, stemming and stem production - for Finnish are compared in a probabilistic IR environment (INQUERY). Evaluation is done using a four-point relevance scale which is partitioned differently in different test settings. Findings - Results show that stem production, a lighter method than morphological lemmatization, compares well with lemmatization in a best-match IR environment. Differences in performance between stem production and lemmatization are small and they are not statistically significant in most of the tested settings. It is also shown that hitherto a rather neglected method of morphological processing for Finnish, stemming, performs reasonably well although the stemmer used - a Porter stemmer implementation - is far from optimal for a morphologically complex language like Finnish. In another series of tests, the effects of compound splitting and derivational expansion of queries are tested. Practical implications - Usefulness of morphological lemmatization and stem generation for IR purposes can be estimated with many factors. On the average P-R level they seem to behave very close to each other in a probabilistic IR system. Thus, the choice of the used method with highly inflectional languages needs to be estimated along other dimensions too. Originality/value - Results are achieved using Finnish as an example of a highly inflectional language. The results are of interest for anyone who is interested in processing of morphological variation of a highly inflected language for IR purposes.

0.008123662 = product of:
  0.016247325 = sum of:
    0.016247325 = product of:
      0.03249465 = sum of:
        0.03249465 = weight(_text_:p in 4545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03249465 = score(doc=4545,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 4545, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4545)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.008123662 = product of:
  0.016247325 = sum of:
    0.016247325 = product of:
      0.03249465 = sum of:
        0.03249465 = weight(_text_:p in 1309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03249465 = score(doc=1309,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 1309, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.008123662 = product of:
  0.016247325 = sum of:
    0.016247325 = product of:
      0.03249465 = sum of:
        0.03249465 = weight(_text_:p in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03249465 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.008123662 = product of:
  0.016247325 = sum of:
    0.016247325 = product of:
      0.03249465 = sum of:
        0.03249465 = weight(_text_:p in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03249465 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.007705845 = product of:
  0.01541169 = sum of:
    0.01541169 = product of:
      0.03082338 = sum of:
        0.03082338 = weight(_text_:22 in 1369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03082338 = score(doc=1369,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15933464 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1369, 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=1369)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:22:42

0.00649893 = product of:
  0.01299786 = sum of:
    0.01299786 = product of:
      0.02599572 = sum of:
        0.02599572 = weight(_text_:p in 643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02599572 = score(doc=643,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.15890071 = fieldWeight in 643, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=643)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.004061831 = product of:
  0.008123662 = sum of:
    0.008123662 = product of:
      0.016247325 = sum of:
        0.016247325 = weight(_text_:p in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016247325 = score(doc=1323,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.099312946 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)