Search (129 results, page 7 of 7)

0.0112130465 = product of:
  0.022426093 = sum of:
    0.022426093 = product of:
      0.044852186 = sum of:
        0.044852186 = weight(_text_:k in 66) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044852186 = score(doc=66,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16245733 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045509085 = queryNorm
            0.27608594 = fieldWeight in 66, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=66)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Wir beschränken uns daher auf die Darstellung des sprachlichen Feldbegriffes durch ein mathematisches Modell ... bzw.: wir definieren das sprachliche Feld über ein mathematisches Modell. Die Feldeigenschaften in einem System sprachlicher Entitäten sind zunächst solche des gegenseitigen Benachbartseins. Wir können von syntaktischen und/oder semantischen Umgebungen sprechen, in denen jeweils alle zu einem Wort (einer sprachlichen Einheit) synonymen oder sinnverwandten oder strukturverwandten Worte (Einheiten) liegen. Die Eigenschaften von Wortfeldern sind also in dieser Sicht vornehmlich topologischer Natur. Dabei bleibt es gleichgültig, welchem Autor man folgt, wenn man den Feldbegriff in der Sprache zu erfassen trachtet. Immer sind es Umgebungs-, Nachbarschaftsrelationen und fundierende Toleranzrelationen, die als formaler, sprich: mathematischer Kern inhärent sind. Bemerkungen über die Möglichkeit einer algebraisch-topologischen Kennzeichnung von Wortfeldsystemen beschließen Teil 3. In Teil 4. stellen wir den Begriff der k-Toleranzrelation vor. Relationen dieser Art stehen in gewissem Sinne zwischen den Äquivalenzrelationen und den Toleranzrelationen. Mit Modellbildungen auf der Basis von k-Toleranzrelationen kommt man der Realität der Sprache vielleicht am nächsten. Für den Problemkreis der Synonymität bedeutet ihre Einführung, daß man jetzt weder die Gültigkeit strenger Äquivalenz noch die schwache Bedingung der Ununterscheidbarkeit fordert, sondern nur eine k-Ununterscheidbarkeit. Relationentheoretisch entspricht dem die Forderung einer abgeschwächten Transitivität. In Teil 5. deuten wir an, wie man die in Teil 3. angegebenen Definitionsschemata für Synonyma auf der Grundlage der k-Toleranzräume verschärfen kann.

0.010790242 = product of:
  0.021580484 = sum of:
    0.021580484 = product of:
      0.043160968 = sum of:
        0.043160968 = weight(_text_:22 in 1151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043160968 = score(doc=1151,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15936506 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045509085 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1151, 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=1151)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library resources and technical services. 22(1978), S.402-408

0.009611183 = product of:
  0.019222366 = sum of:
    0.019222366 = product of:
      0.03844473 = sum of:
        0.03844473 = weight(_text_:k in 2628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03844473 = score(doc=2628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16245733 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045509085 = queryNorm
            0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 2628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009611183 = product of:
  0.019222366 = sum of:
    0.019222366 = product of:
      0.03844473 = sum of:
        0.03844473 = weight(_text_:k in 3694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03844473 = score(doc=3694,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16245733 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045509085 = queryNorm
            0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 3694, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3694)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009611183 = product of:
  0.019222366 = sum of:
    0.019222366 = product of:
      0.03844473 = sum of:
        0.03844473 = weight(_text_:k in 4032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03844473 = score(doc=4032,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16245733 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045509085 = queryNorm
            0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 4032, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4032)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Editor

Ritter, J., K. Gründer u. G.Gabriel

0.008009318 = product of:
  0.016018637 = sum of:
    0.016018637 = product of:
      0.032037273 = sum of:
        0.032037273 = weight(_text_:k in 2313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032037273 = score(doc=2313,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16245733 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045509085 = queryNorm
            0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 2313, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2313)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.008009318 = product of:
  0.016018637 = sum of:
    0.016018637 = product of:
      0.032037273 = sum of:
        0.032037273 = weight(_text_:k in 4327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032037273 = score(doc=4327,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16245733 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045509085 = queryNorm
            0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 4327, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4327)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.006165853 = product of:
  0.012331706 = sum of:
    0.012331706 = product of:
      0.024663411 = sum of:
        0.024663411 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024663411 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15936506 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045509085 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Libri. 22(1972) no.1, S.85-92

0.0056065232 = product of:
  0.0112130465 = sum of:
    0.0112130465 = product of:
      0.022426093 = sum of:
        0.022426093 = weight(_text_:k in 3431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022426093 = score(doc=3431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16245733 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045509085 = queryNorm
            0.13804297 = fieldWeight in 3431, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Enthält u.a. die Beiträge: HENRIKSEN, T.: A linguistic description model for indexing languages; MONTGOMERY, C.A.: Toward a natural language communications inferface; SPANG-HANSSEN, H.: Are classification systems similar to natural languages; LANCASTER, F.W.: Vocabulary control for on-line interactive retrieval systems: requirements and possible approaches; DAHLBERG, I.: On the theory of the concept; GROLIER, E. de: In search of an objective basis for the organization of knowledge; BELING, G.: Towards a set theoretical foundation of classification; BHATTACHARYYA, G.: Fundamenbtal of subject indexing languages; CAVALCANTI, C.R.: Universal integrated media for information processing; DESAI, A.R.: Theory of integrative levels, general systems theory, theory of classification, theory of wvolution, and theory of pattern recognition (abstract); GOPINATH, M.A. u. S. SEETHARAMA: Interdisciplinary subjects and their classification; IMMROTH, J.P.: A lexical essay toward the developments of the theory of indexes to classification schemes; KOCHEN, M.: Organising knowledge for coping with needs; KURBAKOV, K.I. u. V.G. BOLDOV: Problem of compatibility of information classification systems and some probable methods of its solution; MAIXNER, V.: Classification systems and retrieval languages; MEINCKE, P.P.M. u. P. ATHERTON: Knowledge space: a conceptual basis for the organization of knowledge; NEELAMEGHAN, A.: Absolute syntax and structure of an indexing and switching language; NEILL, S.D. MacLuhan and classification; RICHMOND, P.A. u. N.J. WILLIAMSON: Three dimensional physical models in classification; SVENONIUS, E.: Translation between hierarchical structures: an exercise in abstract classification; BORKO, H.: Changing roles of and developments in automated classification; DREESE, M.J.: Comparison of document retrieval using UDC - notation given by UDC - expert with catch-words taken from title by clerk, stored in computer memory; GARFIELD, E., MALIN, M.V. u. H. SMALL: A system for automatic classification of scientific literature (abstract); HEAPS, H.S. u. K.V. LEuNG: Automatic document classification based on a theory of relevance; HOYLE, W.G.: A measure of overlap in classification systems; KLESZCZ: Method of information retrieval and subject index compilation for abstracting periodicals with the use of a thesaurus enlarged with machine part classification; SCHNEIDER, J.H.: AUTOCLASS: a computer system for facilitating the creation and updating of hierarchical classifications; JANOS, J.: Information systems with automated indexing based an the analysis of texts; RIGBY, M.: Advances since Elsinore in the use of automated equipment for vocabulary, classification schedule and information or data control on a universal scale; TOMAN, J.: Trend of the future: two ordering system used together? TOMAN, J. u. G.A. Lloyd: Introduction to the Subject-field Reference Code (SRC) or Broad System of Ordering (BSO) for UNISIST purposes; AUSTIN, D.: Differences between library classifications and machine-based subject retrieval systems; some inferences drawn from research in Britain, 1963-1973; JACHOWICZ, R.L.: Application of classification as basis for the formulation of thesaurus; KOFNOVEC, L. u. D. SIMANDL: Quantitative structure of world scientific and technical literature and its use for optimizing general classifications; RAJAN, T.N. u. B. GUHA: A comparative study of subject heading structuring according to POPSI and PRECIS; ROLLING, L.N.: Computer management of multi-lingual thesauri; SOKOLOV, A.V.: Compound indexing languages; VILENSKAYA, S.C.: Systems approach as a principle of thesaurus building on the basis of the subject headings language; WAHLIN, E.: Special classification systems used together with a common reference system; the AR-complex; WERSIG, G.: Experiences in compatibility research in documentary languages; WOLFF-TERROINE, M.: A macrothesaurus. Why? How? SAMUELSON, K.: Information ordering in worldwise communications; SHEPHERD, M. u. C. WATTERS: Hierarchical retrieval from structured text