Search (150 results, page 1 of 8)

0.0672971 = product of:
  0.100945644 = sum of:
    0.00890397 = weight(_text_:a in 825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00890397 = score(doc=825,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 825, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=825)
    0.09204167 = sum of:
      0.055313893 = weight(_text_:de in 825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055313893 = score(doc=825,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045180224 = queryNorm
          0.28488597 = fieldWeight in 825, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=825)
      0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03672778 = score(doc=825,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045180224 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 825, 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=825)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Relevance Feedback consists in automatically formulating a new query according to the relevance judgments provided by the user after evaluating a set of retrieved documents. In this article, we introduce several relevance feedback methods for the Bayesian Network Retrieval ModeL The theoretical frame an which our methods are based uses the concept of partial evidences, which summarize the new pieces of information gathered after evaluating the results obtained by the original query. These partial evidences are inserted into the underlying Bayesian network and a new inference process (probabilities propagation) is run to compute the posterior relevance probabilities of the documents in the collection given the new query. The quality of the proposed methods is tested using a preliminary experimentation with different standard document collections.

Date

22. 3.2003 19:30:19

Type

a

0.05745974 = product of:
  0.08618961 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 2875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=2875,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2875, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2875)
    0.07822566 = product of:
      0.15645131 = sum of:
        0.15645131 = weight(_text_:de in 2875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15645131 = score(doc=2875,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.8057792 = fieldWeight in 2875, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Type

a

0.034760237 = product of:
  0.052140355 = sum of:
    0.009291277 = weight(_text_:a in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009291277 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3445, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3445)
    0.04284908 = product of:
      0.08569816 = sum of:
        0.08569816 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08569816 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3445, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3445)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

25. 8.2005 17:42:22

Type

a

0.032498594 = product of:
  0.04874789 = sum of:
    0.01187196 = weight(_text_:a in 2564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01187196 = score(doc=2564,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 2564, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2564)
    0.03687593 = product of:
      0.07375186 = sum of:
        0.07375186 = weight(_text_:de in 2564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07375186 = score(doc=2564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.37984797 = fieldWeight in 2564, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2564)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The classification of documents from a bibliographic database is a task that is linked to processes of information retrieval based on partial matching. A method is described of vectorizing reference documents from LISA which permits their topological organization using Kohonen's algorithm. As an example a map is generated of 202 documents from LISA, and an analysis is made of the possibilities of this type of neural network with respect to the development of information retrieval systems based on graphical browsing.

Type

a

0.02589091 = product of:
  0.038836364 = sum of:
    0.0065699257 = weight(_text_:a in 1076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065699257 = score(doc=1076,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 1076, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1076)
    0.032266438 = product of:
      0.064532876 = sum of:
        0.064532876 = weight(_text_:de in 1076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064532876 = score(doc=1076,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.33236697 = fieldWeight in 1076, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1076)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Type

a

0.02589091 = product of:
  0.038836364 = sum of:
    0.0065699257 = weight(_text_:a in 2451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065699257 = score(doc=2451,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2451, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2451)
    0.032266438 = product of:
      0.064532876 = sum of:
        0.064532876 = weight(_text_:de in 2451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064532876 = score(doc=2451,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.33236697 = fieldWeight in 2451, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2451)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The Yarowsky bootstrapping algorithm resolves the homograph-level word sense disambiguation (WSD) problem, which is the sense granularity level required for real natural language processing (NLP) applications. At the same time it resolves the knowledge acquisition bottleneck problem affecting most WSD algorithms and can be easily applied to foreign language corpora. However, this paper shows that the Yarowsky algorithm is significantly less accurate when applied to domain fluctuating, real corpora. This paper also introduces a new bootstrapping methodology that performs much better when applied to these corpora. The accuracy achieved in non-domain fluctuating corpora is not reached due to inherent domain fluctuation ambiguities.

Type

a

0.0242381 = product of:
  0.03635715 = sum of:
    0.01187196 = weight(_text_:a in 1422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01187196 = score(doc=1422,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 1422, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1422)
    0.024485188 = product of:
      0.048970375 = sum of:
        0.048970375 = weight(_text_:22 in 1422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048970375 = score(doc=1422,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1422, 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=1422)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We propose a novel approach to incorporate term similarity and inverse document frequency into a logical model of information retrieval. The ability of the logic to handle expressive representations along with the use of such classical notions are promising characteristics for IR systems. The approach proposed here has been efficiently implemented and experiments against test collections are presented.

Date

22. 3.2003 19:27:23

Type

a

0.0220016 = product of:
  0.0330024 = sum of:
    0.0099549405 = weight(_text_:a in 5154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0099549405 = score(doc=5154,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 5154, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5154)
    0.023047457 = product of:
      0.046094913 = sum of:
        0.046094913 = weight(_text_:de in 5154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046094913 = score(doc=5154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23740499 = fieldWeight in 5154, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Lopez-Pujalte and Guerrero-Bote test a relevance feedback genetic algorithm while varying its order based fitness functions and generating a function based upon the Ide dec-hi method as a base line. Using the non-zero weighted term types assigned to the query, and to the initially retrieved set of documents, as genes, a chromosome of equal length is created for each. The algorithm is provided with the chromosomes for judged relevant documents, for judged irrelevant documents, and for the irrelevant documents with their terms negated. The algorithm uses random selection of all possible genes, but gives greater likelihood to those with higher fitness values. When the fittest chromosome of a previous population is eliminated it is restored while the least fittest of the new population is eliminated in its stead. A crossover probability of .8 and a mutation probability of .2 were used with 20 generations. Three fitness functions were utilized; the Horng and Yeh function which takes into account the position of relevant documents, and two new functions, one based on accumulating the cosine similarity for retrieved documents, the other on stored fixed-recall-interval precessions. The Cranfield collection was used with the first 15 documents retrieved from 33 queries chosen to have at least 3 relevant documents in the first 15 and at least 5 relevant documents not initially retrieved. Precision was calculated at fixed recall levels using the residual collection method which removes viewed documents. One of the three functions improved the original retrieval by127 percent, while the Ide dec-hi method provided a 120 percent improvement.

Type

a

0.021329116 = product of:
  0.031993672 = sum of:
    0.0075084865 = weight(_text_:a in 5108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075084865 = score(doc=5108,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 5108, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5108)
    0.024485188 = product of:
      0.048970375 = sum of:
        0.048970375 = weight(_text_:22 in 5108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048970375 = score(doc=5108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5108, 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=5108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

20. 1.2007 18:30:22

Type

a

0.01978939 = product of:
  0.029684084 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 2756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=2756,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2756, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2756)
    0.023047457 = product of:
      0.046094913 = sum of:
        0.046094913 = weight(_text_:de in 2756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046094913 = score(doc=2756,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23740499 = fieldWeight in 2756, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2756)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We evaluated the different genetic algorithms applied to relevance feedback that are to be found in the literature and which follow the vector space model (the most commonly used model in this type of application). They were compared with a traditional relevance feedback algorithm - the Ide dec-hi method - since this had given the best results in the study of Salton & Buckley (1990) an this subject. The experiment was performed an the Cranfield collection, and the different algorithms were evaluated using the residual collection method (one of the most suitable methods for evaluating relevance feedback techniques). The results varied greatly depending an the fitness function that was used, from no improvement in some of the genetic algorithms, to a more than 127% improvement with one algorithm, surpassing even the traditional Ide dec-hi method. One can therefore conclude that genetic algorithms show great promise as an aid to implementing a truly effective information retrieval system.

Type

a

0.01926614 = product of:
  0.028899208 = sum of:
    0.010535319 = weight(_text_:a in 2096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010535319 = score(doc=2096,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 2096, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2096)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 2096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=2096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2096, 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=2096)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper examines the estimation of global term weights (such as IDF) in information retrieval scenarios where a global view on the collection is not available. In particular, the two options of either sampling documents or of using a reference corpus independent of the target retrieval collection are compared using standard IR test collections. In addition, the possibility of pruning term lists based on frequency is evaluated. The results show that very good retrieval performance can be reached when just the most frequent terms of a collection - an "extended stop word list" - are known and all terms which are not in that list are treated equally. However, the list cannot always be fully estimated from a general-purpose reference corpus, but some "domain-specific stop words" need to be added. A good solution for achieving this is to mix estimates from small samples of the target retrieval collection with ones derived from a reference corpus.

Date

1. 8.2008 9:44:22

Type

a

0.018178573 = product of:
  0.027267858 = sum of:
    0.00890397 = weight(_text_:a in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00890397 = score(doc=2419,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2419, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2419)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=2419,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The digital library system Daffodil is targeted at strategic support of users during the information search process. For searching, exploring and managing digital library objects it provides user-customisable information seeking patterns over a federation of heterogeneous digital libraries. In this paper evaluation results with respect to retrieval effectiveness, efficiency and user satisfaction are presented. The analysis focuses on strategic support for the scientific work-flow. Daffodil supports the whole work-flow, from data source selection over information seeking to the representation, organisation and reuse of information. By embedding high level search functionality into the scientific work-flow, the user experiences better strategic system support due to a more systematic work process. These ideas have been implemented in Daffodil followed by a qualitative evaluation. The evaluation has been conducted with 28 participants, ranging from information seeking novices to experts. The results are promising, as they support the chosen model.

Date

16.11.2008 16:22:48

Type

a

0.017551895 = product of:
  0.026327841 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 2239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=2239,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2239, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2239)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 2239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=2239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2239, 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=2239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Genetic-based evolutionary learning algorithms, such as genetic algorithms (GAs) and genetic programming (GP), have been applied to information retrieval (IR) since the 1980s. Recently, GP has been applied to a new IR taskdiscovery of ranking functions for Web search-and has achieved very promising results. However, in our prior research, only one fitness function has been used for GP-based learning. It is unclear how other fitness functions may affect ranking function discovery for Web search, especially since it is weIl known that choosing a proper fitness function is very important for the effectiveness and efficiency of evolutionary algorithms. In this article, we report our experience in contrasting different fitness function designs an GP-based learning using a very large Web corpus. Our results indicate that the design of fitness functions is instrumental in performance improvement. We also give recommendations an the design of fitness functions for genetic-based information retrieval experiments.

Date

31. 5.2004 19:22:06

Type

a

0.017551895 = product of:
  0.026327841 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=2717,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2717, 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=2717)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Previous work an search-engine design has indicated that information-seekers may benefit from being given the opportunity to exploit multiple sources of evidence of document relatedness. Few existing systems, however, give users more than minimal control over the selections that may be made among methods of exploitation. By applying the methods of "document network analysis" (DNA), a unifying, graph-theoretic model of content-, collaboration-, and context-based systems (CCC) may be developed in which the nature of the similarities between types of document relatedness and document ranking are clarified. The usefulness of the approach to system design suggested by this model may be tested by constructing and evaluating a prototype system (UCXtra) that allows searchers to maintain control over the multiple ways in which document collections may be ranked and re-ranked.

Date

11. 9.2004 17:32:22

Type

a

0.01753923 = product of:
  0.026308842 = sum of:
    0.011005601 = weight(_text_:a in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011005601 = score(doc=1428,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
    0.015303242 = product of:
      0.030606484 = sum of:
        0.030606484 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030606484 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Humans can make hasty, but generally robust judgements about what a text fragment is, or is not, about. Such judgements are termed information inference. This article furnishes an account of information inference from a psychologistic stance. By drawing an theories from nonclassical logic and applied cognition, an information inference mechanism is proposed that makes inferences via computations of information flow through an approximation of a conceptual space. Within a conceptual space information is represented geometrically. In this article, geometric representations of words are realized as vectors in a high dimensional semantic space, which is automatically constructed from a text corpus. Two approaches were presented for priming vector representations according to context. The first approach uses a concept combination heuristic to adjust the vector representation of a concept in the light of the representation of another concept. The second approach computes a prototypical concept an the basis of exemplar trace texts and moves it in the dimensional space according to the context. Information inference is evaluated by measuring the effectiveness of query models derived by information flow computations. Results show that information flow contributes significantly to query model effectiveness, particularly with respect to precision. Moreover, retrieval effectiveness compares favorably with two probabilistic query models, and another based an semantic association. More generally, this article can be seen as a contribution towards realizing operational systems that mimic text-based human reasoning.

Date

22. 3.2003 19:35:46

Type

a

0.017380118 = product of:
  0.026070178 = sum of:
    0.0046456386 = weight(_text_:a in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046456386 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
    0.02142454 = product of:
      0.04284908 = sum of:
        0.04284908 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04284908 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3276, 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=3276)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

20. 3.2005 16:23:22

Type

a

0.015996836 = product of:
  0.023995254 = sum of:
    0.0056313644 = weight(_text_:a in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0056313644 = score(doc=1451,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1451, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1451)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=1451,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1451, 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=1451)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Research an the use of mathematical, logical, and formal methods, has been central to Information Retrieval research for a long time. Research in this area is important not only because it helps enhancing retrieval effectiveness, but also because it helps clarifying the underlying concepts of Information Retrieval. In this article we outline some of the major aspects of the subject, and summarize the papers of this special issue with respect to how they relate to these aspects. We conclude by highlighting some directions of future research, which are needed to better understand the formal characteristics of Information Retrieval.

Date

22. 3.2003 19:27:36

Type

a

0.015620945 = product of:
  0.023431417 = sum of:
    0.008128175 = weight(_text_:a in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008128175 = score(doc=56,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
    0.015303242 = product of:
      0.030606484 = sum of:
        0.030606484 = weight(_text_:22 in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030606484 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The study reported here investigated the query expansion behavior of end-users interacting with a thesaurus-enhanced search system on the Web. Two groups, namely academic staff and postgraduate students, were recruited into this study. Data were collected from 90 searches performed by 30 users using the OVID interface to the CAB abstracts database. Data-gathering techniques included questionnaires, screen capturing software, and interviews. The results presented here relate to issues of search-topic and search-term characteristics, number and types of expanded queries, usefulness of thesaurus terms, and behavioral differences between academic staff and postgraduate students in their interaction. The key conclusions drawn were that (a) academic staff chose more narrow and synonymous terms than did postgraduate students, who generally selected broader and related terms; (b) topic complexity affected users' interaction with the thesaurus in that complex topics required more query expansion and search term selection; (c) users' prior topic-search experience appeared to have a significant effect on their selection and evaluation of thesaurus terms; (d) in 50% of the searches where additional terms were suggested from the thesaurus, users stated that they had not been aware of the terms at the beginning of the search; this observation was particularly noticeable in the case of postgraduate students.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:32:43

Type

a

0.015148811 = product of:
  0.022723217 = sum of:
    0.0074199745 = weight(_text_:a in 1753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074199745 = score(doc=1753,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 1753, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1753)
    0.015303242 = product of:
      0.030606484 = sum of:
        0.030606484 = weight(_text_:22 in 1753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030606484 = score(doc=1753,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1753, 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=1753)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This book offers a comprehensive and consistent mathematical approach to information retrieval (IR) without which no implementation is possible, and sheds an entirely new light upon the structure of IR models. It contains the descriptions of all IR models in a unified formal style and language, along with examples for each, thus offering a comprehensive overview of them. The book also creates mathematical foundations and a consistent mathematical theory (including all mathematical results achieved so far) of IR as a stand-alone mathematical discipline, which thus can be read and taught independently. Also, the book contains all necessary mathematical knowledge on which IR relies, to help the reader avoid searching different sources. The book will be of interest to computer or information scientists, librarians, mathematicians, undergraduate students and researchers whose work involves information retrieval.

Date

22. 3.2008 12:26:32

0.01440484 = product of:
  0.02160726 = sum of:
    0.01089499 = weight(_text_:a in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01089499 = score(doc=2509,freq=44.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20913726 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
          6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
            44.0 = termFreq=44.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
    0.01071227 = product of:
      0.02142454 = sum of:
        0.02142454 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02142454 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2509, 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=2509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A relevancy-ranking algorithm for a natural language interface to Boolean online public access catalogs (OPACs) was formulated and compared with that currently used in a knowledge-based search interface called the E-Referencer, being developed by the authors. The algorithm makes use of seven weIl-known ranking criteria: breadth of match, section weighting, proximity of query words, variant word forms (stemming), document frequency, term frequency and document length. The algorithm converts a natural language query into a series of increasingly broader Boolean search statements. In a small experiment with ten subjects in which the algorithm was simulated by hand, the algorithm obtained good results with a mean overall precision of 0.42 and mean average precision of 0.62, representing a 27 percent improvement in precision and 41 percent improvement in average precision compared to the E-Referencer. The usefulness of each step in the algorithm was analyzed and suggestions are made for improving the algorithm.

Content

"Most Web search engines accept natural language queries, perform some kind of fuzzy matching and produce ranked output, displaying first the documents that are most likely to be relevant. On the other hand, most library online public access catalogs (OPACs) an the Web are still Boolean retrieval systems that perform exact matching, and require users to express their search requests precisely in a Boolean search language and to refine their search statements to improve the search results. It is well-documented that users have difficulty searching Boolean OPACs effectively (e.g. Borgman, 1996; Ensor, 1992; Wallace, 1993). One approach to making OPACs easier to use is to develop a natural language search interface that acts as a middleware between the user's Web browser and the OPAC system. The search interface can accept a natural language query from the user and reformulate it as a series of Boolean search statements that are then submitted to the OPAC. The records retrieved by the OPAC are ranked by the search interface before forwarding them to the user's Web browser. The user, then, does not need to interact directly with the Boolean OPAC but with the natural language search interface or search intermediary. The search interface interacts with the OPAC system an the user's behalf. The advantage of this approach is that no modification to the OPAC or library system is required. Furthermore, the search interface can access multiple OPACs, acting as a meta search engine, and integrate search results from various OPACs before sending them to the user. The search interface needs to incorporate a method for converting the user's natural language query into a series of Boolean search statements, and for ranking the OPAC records retrieved. The purpose of this study was to develop a relevancyranking algorithm for a search interface to Boolean OPAC systems. This is part of an on-going effort to develop a knowledge-based search interface to OPACs called the E-Referencer (Khoo et al., 1998, 1999; Poo et al., 2000). E-Referencer v. 2 that has been implemented applies a repertoire of initial search strategies and reformulation strategies to retrieve records from OPACs using the Z39.50 protocol, and also assists users in mapping query keywords to the Library of Congress subject headings."

Source

Electronic library. 22(2004) no.2, S.112-120

Type

a