Search (261 results, page 2 of 14)

0.021217927 = product of:
  0.03182689 = sum of:
    0.008779433 = weight(_text_:a in 2432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008779433 = score(doc=2432,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 2432, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2432)
    0.023047457 = product of:
      0.046094913 = sum of:
        0.046094913 = weight(_text_:de in 2432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046094913 = score(doc=2432,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23740499 = fieldWeight in 2432, 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=2432)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We propose and evaluate a query expansion mechanism that supports searching and browsing in collections of annotated documents. Based on generative language models, our feedback mechanism uses document-level annotations to bias the generation of expansion terms and to generate browsing suggestions in the form of concepts selected from a controlled vocabulary (as typically used in digital library settings). We provide a detailed formalization of our feedback mechanism and evaluate its effectiveness using the TREC 2006 Genomics track test set. As to the retrieval effectiveness, we find a 20% improvement in mean average precision over a query-likelihood baseline, whilst increasing precision at 10. When we base the parameter estimation and feedback generation of our algorithm on a large corpus, we also find an improvement over state-of-the-art relevance models. The browsing suggestions are assessed along two dimensions: relevancy and specifity. We present an account of per-topic results, which helps understand for what type of queries our feedback mechanism is particularly helpful.

Type

a

0.021217927 = product of:
  0.03182689 = sum of:
    0.008779433 = weight(_text_:a in 430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008779433 = score(doc=430,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 430, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=430)
    0.023047457 = product of:
      0.046094913 = sum of:
        0.046094913 = weight(_text_:de in 430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046094913 = score(doc=430,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23740499 = fieldWeight in 430, 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=430)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

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

Source

Semantic search over the Web. Eds.: R. De Virgilio, et al

0.020477211 = product of:
  0.030715816 = sum of:
    0.009291277 = weight(_text_:a in 1466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009291277 = score(doc=1466,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 1466, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1466)
    0.02142454 = product of:
      0.04284908 = sum of:
        0.04284908 = weight(_text_:22 in 1466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04284908 = score(doc=1466,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1466, 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=1466)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The paper discusses the issue of increasing users' access to library records by their publication in Google. Data from the records, converted into html format, have been indexed by Google. The process covered basic formal description fields of the records, description of the content, supported with a thesaurus, as well as an abstract, if present in the record. In addition to monitoring the end users' statistics, the pilot testing covered visibility of library records in Google search results.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

Type

a

0.020448808 = product of:
  0.03067321 = sum of:
    0.0045979903 = weight(_text_:a in 411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0045979903 = score(doc=411,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.088261776 = fieldWeight in 411, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=411)
    0.02607522 = product of:
      0.05215044 = sum of:
        0.05215044 = weight(_text_:de in 411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05215044 = score(doc=411,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.26859307 = fieldWeight in 411, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=411)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The Web has become the world's largest database, with search being the main tool that allows organizations and individuals to exploit its huge amount of information. Search on the Web has been traditionally based on textual and structural similarities, ignoring to a large degree the semantic dimension, i.e., understanding the meaning of the query and of the document content. Combining search and semantics gives birth to the idea of semantic search. Traditional search engines have already advertised some semantic dimensions. Some of them, for instance, can enhance their generated result sets with documents that are semantically related to the query terms even though they may not include these terms. Nevertheless, the exploitation of the semantic search has not yet reached its full potential. In this book, Roberto De Virgilio, Francesco Guerra and Yannis Velegrakis present an extensive overview of the work done in Semantic Search and other related areas. They explore different technologies and solutions in depth, making their collection a valuable and stimulating reading for both academic and industrial researchers. The book is divided into three parts. The first introduces the readers to the basic notions of the Web of Data. It describes the different kinds of data that exist, their topology, and their storing and indexing techniques. The second part is dedicated to Web Search. It presents different types of search, like the exploratory or the path-oriented, alongside methods for their efficient and effective implementation. Other related topics included in this part are the use of uncertainty in query answering, the exploitation of ontologies, and the use of semantics in mashup design and operation. The focus of the third part is on linked data, and more specifically, on applying ideas originating in recommender systems on linked data management, and on techniques for the efficiently querying answering on linked data.

Content

Inhalt: Introduction.- Part I Introduction to Web of Data.- Topology of the Web of Data.- Storing and Indexing Massive RDF Data Sets.- Designing Exploratory Search Applications upon Web Data Sources.- Part II Search over the Web.- Path-oriented Keyword Search query over RDF.- Interactive Query Construction for Keyword Search on the SemanticWeb.- Understanding the Semantics of Keyword Queries on Relational DataWithout Accessing the Instance.- Keyword-Based Search over Semantic Data.- Semantic Link Discovery over Relational Data.- Embracing Uncertainty in Entity Linking.- The Return of the Entity-Relationship Model: Ontological Query Answering.- Linked Data Services and Semantics-enabled Mashup.- Part III Linked Data Search engines.- A Recommender System for Linked Data.- Flint: from Web Pages to Probabilistic Semantic Data.- Searching and Browsing Linked Data with SWSE.

Editor

Virgilio, R. de

0.019647349 = product of:
  0.029471021 = sum of:
    0.008046483 = weight(_text_:a in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008046483 = score(doc=1319,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1319, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1319)
    0.02142454 = product of:
      0.04284908 = sum of:
        0.04284908 = weight(_text_:22 in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04284908 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1319, 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=1319)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Keyword based querying has been an immediate and efficient way to specify and retrieve related information that the user inquired. However, conventional document ranking based on an automatic assessment of document relevance to the query may not be the best approach when little information is given. Proposes an idea to integrate 2 existing techniques, query expansion and relevance feedback to achieve a concept-based information search for the Web

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

Footnote

Contribution to a special issue devoted to the Proceedings of the 7th International World Wide Web Conference, held 14-18 April 1998, Brisbane, Australia

Type

a

0.019647349 = product of:
  0.029471021 = sum of:
    0.008046483 = weight(_text_:a in 1465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008046483 = score(doc=1465,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1465, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1465)
    0.02142454 = product of:
      0.04284908 = sum of:
        0.04284908 = weight(_text_:22 in 1465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04284908 = score(doc=1465,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1465, 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=1465)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

"Explore" is a user task introduced in the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. Through various case scenarios, the authors discuss how structured data, presented based on Linked Data principles and using knowledge organisation systems (KOS) as the backbone, extend the explore task within and beyond subject authority data.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

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

0.01757718 = product of:
  0.02636577 = sum of:
    0.0033183133 = weight(_text_:a in 431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033183133 = score(doc=431,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 431, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=431)
    0.023047457 = product of:
      0.046094913 = sum of:
        0.046094913 = weight(_text_:de in 431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046094913 = score(doc=431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23740499 = fieldWeight in 431, 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=431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The birth of the Web has brought an exponential growth to the amount of the information that is freely available to the Internet population, overloading users and entangling their efforts to satisfy their information needs. Web search engines such Google, Yahoo, or Bing have become popular mainly due to the fact that they offer an easy-to-use query interface (i.e., based on keywords) and an effective and efficient query execution mechanism. The majority of these search engines do not consider information stored on the deep or hidden Web [9,28], despite the fact that the size of the deep Web is estimated to be much bigger than the surface Web [9,47]. There have been a number of systems that record interactions with the deep Web sources or automatically submit queries them (mainly through their Web form interfaces) in order to index their context. Unfortunately, this technique is only partially indexing the data instance. Moreover, it is not possible to take advantage of the query capabilities of data sources, for example, of the relational query features, because their interface is often restricted from the Web form. Besides, Web search engines focus on retrieving documents and not on querying structured sources, so they are unable to access information based on concepts.

Source

Semantic search over the Web. Eds.: R. De Virgilio, et al

0.017551895 = product of:
  0.026327841 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 1464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=1464,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1464, 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=1464)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 1464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=1464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1464, 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=1464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper attempts to explore an approach of using an automatic semantic analysis tool to enhance the "subject" access to materials that are not included in the usual library subject cataloging process. Using two research samples the authors analyzed the access points supplied by OpenCalais, a semantic analysis tool. As an aid in understanding how computerized subject analysis might be approached, this paper suggests using the three-layer framework that has been accepted and applied in image analysis, developed by Erwin Panofsky.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

Type

a

0.017551895 = product of:
  0.026327841 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=2230,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2230, 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=2230)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=2230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We present a deductive data model for concept-based query expansion. It is based on three abstraction levels: the conceptual, linguistic and occurrence levels. Concepts and relationships among them are represented at the conceptual level. The expression level represents natural language expressions for concepts. Each expression has one or more matching models at the occurrence level. Each model specifies the matching of the expression in database indices built in varying ways. The data model supports a concept-based query expansion and formulation tool, the ExpansionTool, for environments providing heterogeneous IR systems. Expansion is controlled by adjustable matching reliability.

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

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 1852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046456386 = score(doc=1852,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 1852, 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=1852)
    0.02142454 = product of:
      0.04284908 = sum of:
        0.04284908 = weight(_text_:22 in 1852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04284908 = score(doc=1852,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1852, 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=1852)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

11. 2.2011 18:22:58

Type

a

0.016249297 = product of:
  0.024373945 = sum of:
    0.00593598 = weight(_text_:a in 428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00593598 = score(doc=428,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 428, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=428)
    0.018437965 = product of:
      0.03687593 = sum of:
        0.03687593 = weight(_text_:de in 428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03687593 = score(doc=428,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.18992399 = fieldWeight in 428, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=428)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Search is the preferred method to access information in today's computing systems. The Web, accessed through search engines, is universally recognized as the source for answering users' information needs. However, offering a link to a Web page does not cover all information needs. Even simple problems, such as "Which theater offers an at least three-stars action movie in London close to a good Italian restaurant," can only be solved by searching the Web multiple times, e.g., by extracting a list of the recent action movies filtered by ranking, then looking for movie theaters, then looking for Italian restaurants close to them. While search engines hint to useful information, the user's brain is the fundamental platform for information integration. An important trend is the availability of new, specialized data sources-the so-called "long tail" of the Web of data. Such carefully collected and curated data sources can be much more valuable than information currently available in Web pages; however, many sources remain hidden or insulated, in the lack of software solutions for bringing them to surface and making them usable in the search context. A new class of tailor-made systems, designed to satisfy the needs of users with specific aims, will support the publishing and integration of data sources for vertical domains; the user will be able to select sources based on individual or collective trust, and systems will be able to route queries to such sources and to provide easyto-use interfaces for combining them within search strategies, at the same time, rewarding the data source owners for each contribution to effective search. Efforts such as Google's Fusion Tables show that the technology for bringing hidden data sources to surface is feasible.

Source

Semantic search over the Web. Eds.: R. De Virgilio, et al

0.015831511 = product of:
  0.023747265 = sum of:
    0.0053093014 = weight(_text_:a in 4564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053093014 = score(doc=4564,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4564, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4564)
    0.018437965 = product of:
      0.03687593 = sum of:
        0.03687593 = weight(_text_:de in 4564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03687593 = score(doc=4564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.18992399 = fieldWeight in 4564, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4564)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

For this second Special Issue of Infozine, we have invited students, teachers, researchers, and software developers to share their opinions about one or the other aspect of this broad topic: how to balance drilling (for depth) vs. surfing (for breadth) in scientific learning, teaching, research, and software design - and how the modern digital-liberal system affects our ability to strike this balance. This special issue is meant to provide a wide and unbiased spectrum of possible viewpoints on the topic, helping readers to define lucidly their own position and information use behavior.

Content

Editorial: Surfing versus Drilling for Knowledge in Science: When should you use your computer? When should you use your brain? Blaise Pascal: Les deux infinis - The two infinities / Philippe Hünenberger and Oliver Renn - "Surfing" vs. "drilling" in the modern scientific world / Antonio Loprieno - Of millimeter paper and machine learning / Philippe Hünenberger - From one to many, from breadth to depth - industrializing research / Janne Soetbeer - "Deep drilling" requires "surfing" / Gerd Folkers and Laura Folkers - Surfing vs. drilling in science: A delicate balance / Alzbeta Kubincová - Digital trends in academia - for the sake of critical thinking or comfort? / Leif-Thore Deck - I diagnose, therefore I am a Doctor? Will drilling computer software replace human doctors in the future? / Yi Zheng - Surfing versus drilling in fundamental research / Wilfred van Gunsteren - Using brain vs. brute force in computational studies of biological systems / Arieh Warshel - Laboratory literature boards in the digital age / Jeffrey Bode - Research strategies in computational chemistry / Sereina Riniker - Surfing on the hype waves or drilling deep for knowledge? A perspective from industry / Nadine Schneider and Nikolaus Stiefl - The use and purpose of articles and scientists / Philip Mark Lund - Can you look at papers like artwork? / Oliver Renn - Dynamite fishing in the data swamp / Frank Perabo 34 Streetlights, augmented intelligence, and information discovery / Jeffrey Saffer and Vicki Burnett - "Yes Dave. Happy to do that for you." Why AI, machine learning, and blockchain will lead to deeper "drilling" / Michiel Kolman and Sjors de Heuvel - Trends in scientific document search ( Stefan Geißler - Power tools for text mining / Jane Reed 42 Publishing and patenting: Navigating the differences to ensure search success / Paul Peters

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 5697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074199745 = score(doc=5697,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 5697, 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=5697)
    0.015303242 = product of:
      0.030606484 = sum of:
        0.030606484 = weight(_text_:22 in 5697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030606484 = score(doc=5697,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5697, 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=5697)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The performance of 8 ranking algorithms was evaluated with respect to their effectiveness in ranking terms for query expansion. The evaluation was conducted within an investigation of interactive query expansion and relevance feedback in a real operational environment. Focuses on the identification of algorithms that most effectively take cognizance of user preferences. user choices (i.e. the terms selected by the searchers for the query expansion search) provided the yardstick for the evaluation of the 8 ranking algorithms. This methodology introduces a user oriented approach in evaluating ranking algorithms for query expansion in contrast to the standard, system oriented approaches. Similarities in the performance of the 8 algorithms and the ways these algorithms rank terms were the main focus of this evaluation. The findings demonstrate that the r-lohi, wpq, enim, and porter algorithms have similar performance in bringing good terms to the top of a ranked list of terms for query expansion. However, further evaluation of the algorithms in different (e.g. full text) environments is needed before these results can be generalized beyond the context of the present study

Date

22. 2.1996 13:14:10

Type

a

0.012844093 = product of:
  0.01926614 = sum of:
    0.007023546 = weight(_text_:a in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007023546 = score(doc=1626,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 1626, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1626)
    0.012242594 = product of:
      0.024485188 = sum of:
        0.024485188 = weight(_text_:22 in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024485188 = score(doc=1626,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1626, 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=1626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The growing volumes of semantic data available in the web result in the need for handling the information overload phenomenon. The potential of this amount of data is enormous but in most cases it is very difficult for users to visualize, explore and use this data, especially for lay-users without experience with Semantic Web technologies. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The Visual Information-Seeking Mantra "Overview first, zoom and filter, then details-on-demand" proposed by Shneiderman describes how data should be presented in different stages to achieve an effective exploration. The overview is the first user task when dealing with a data set. The objective is that the user is capable of getting an idea about the overall structure of the data set. Different information architecture (IA) components supporting the overview tasks have been developed, so they are automatically generated from semantic data, and evaluated with end-users. Findings - The chosen IA components are well known to web users, as they are present in most web pages: navigation bars, site maps and site indexes. The authors complement them with Treemaps, a visualization technique for displaying hierarchical data. These components have been developed following an iterative User-Centered Design methodology. Evaluations with end-users have shown that they get easily used to them despite the fact that they are generated automatically from structured data, without requiring knowledge about the underlying semantic technologies, and that the different overview components complement each other as they focus on different information search needs. Originality/value - Obtaining semantic data sets overviews cannot be easily done with the current semantic web browsers. Overviews become difficult to achieve with large heterogeneous data sets, which is typical in the Semantic Web, because traditional IA techniques do not easily scale to large data sets. There is little or no support to obtain overview information quickly and easily at the beginning of the exploration of a new data set. This can be a serious limitation when exploring a data set for the first time, especially for lay-users. The proposal is to reuse and adapt existing IA components to provide this overview to users and show that they can be generated automatically from the thesaurus and ontologies that structure semantic data while providing a comparable user experience to traditional web sites.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Type

a

0.011227056 = product of:
  0.016840585 = sum of:
    0.0045979903 = weight(_text_:a in 1163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0045979903 = score(doc=1163,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.088261776 = fieldWeight in 1163, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1163)
    0.012242594 = product of:
      0.024485188 = sum of:
        0.024485188 = weight(_text_:22 in 1163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024485188 = score(doc=1163,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1163, 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=1163)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper addresses the problem of information discovery in large collections of text. For users, one of the key problems in working with such collections is determining where to focus their attention. In selecting documents for examination, users must be able to formulate reasonably precise queries. Queries that are too broad will greatly reduce the efficiency of information discovery efforts by overwhelming the users with peripheral information. In order to formulate efficient queries, a mechanism is needed to automatically alert users regarding potentially interesting information contained within the collection. This paper presents the results of an experiment designed to test one approach to generation of such alerts. The technique of latent semantic indexing (LSI) is used to identify relationships among entities of interest. Entity extraction software is used to pre-process the text of the collection so that the LSI space contains representation vectors for named entities in addition to those for individual terms. In the LSI space, the cosine of the angle between the representation vectors for two entities captures important information regarding the degree of association of those two entities. For appropriate choices of entities, determining the entity pairs with the highest mutual cosine values yields valuable information regarding the contents of the text collection. The test database used for the experiment consists of 150,000 news articles. The proposed approach for alert generation is tested using a counterterrorism analysis example. The approach is shown to have significant potential for aiding users in rapidly focusing on information of potential importance in large text collections. The approach also has value in identifying possible use of aliases.

Source

Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Link Analysis, Counterterrorism, and Security, SIAM Data Mining Conference, Bethesda, MD, 20-22 April, 2006. [http://www.siam.org/meetings/sdm06/workproceed/Link%20Analysis/15.pdf]

Type

a

0.009823674 = product of:
  0.014735511 = sum of:
    0.0040232413 = weight(_text_:a in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040232413 = score(doc=1633,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.07722905 = fieldWeight in 1633, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1633)
    0.01071227 = product of:
      0.02142454 = sum of:
        0.02142454 = weight(_text_:22 in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02142454 = score(doc=1633,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

Type

a

0.0071415133 = product of:
  0.02142454 = sum of:
    0.02142454 = product of:
      0.04284908 = sum of:
        0.04284908 = weight(_text_:22 in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04284908 = score(doc=4324,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4324, 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=4324)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

11. 2.2011 18:22:25