Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

Airio, E.; Kettunen, K.: Does dictionary based bilingual retrieval work in a non-normalized index? (2009) 0.00
```
0.0020178598 = product of:
  0.0040357197 = sum of:
    0.0040357197 = product of:
      0.008071439 = sum of:
        0.008071439 = weight(_text_:s in 4224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008071439 = score(doc=4224,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.05008241 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046063907 = queryNorm
            0.16116315 = fieldWeight in 4224, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4224)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Many operational IR indexes are non-normalized, i.e. no lemmatization or stemming techniques, etc. have been employed in indexing. This poses a challenge for dictionary-based cross-language retrieval (CLIR), because translations are mostly lemmas. In this study, we face the challenge of dictionary-based CLIR in a non-normalized index. We test two optional approaches: FCG (Frequent Case Generation) and s-gramming. The idea of FCG is to automatically generate the most frequent inflected forms for a given lemma. FCG has been tested in monolingual retrieval and has been shown to be a good method for inflected retrieval, especially for highly inflected languages. S-gramming is an approximate string matching technique (an extension of n-gramming). The language pairs in our tests were English-Finnish, English-Swedish, Swedish-Finnish and Finnish-Swedish. Both our approaches performed quite well, but the results varied depending on the language pair. S-gramming and FCG performed quite equally in all the other language pairs except Finnish-Swedish, where s-gramming outperformed FCG.

Source

Information processing and management. 45(2009) no.6, S.703-713

Airio, E.: Who benefits from CLIR in web retrieval? (2008) 0.00

9.0241426E-4 = product of:
  0.0018048285 = sum of:
    0.0018048285 = product of:
      0.003609657 = sum of:
        0.003609657 = weight(_text_:s in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003609657 = score(doc=2342,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05008241 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046063907 = queryNorm
            0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2342, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2342)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.5, S.760-778

Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

Themes