Search (273 results, page 1 of 14)

0.08511008 = product of:
  0.17022017 = sum of:
    0.08676942 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08676942 = score(doc=6302,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.6946405 = fieldWeight in 6302, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6302)
    0.051335193 = weight(_text_:use in 6302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051335193 = score(doc=6302,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.40597942 = fieldWeight in 6302, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6302)
    0.013388081 = weight(_text_:of in 6302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013388081 = score(doc=6302,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 6302, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6302)
    0.018727465 = product of:
      0.03745493 = sum of:
        0.03745493 = weight(_text_:on in 6302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03745493 = score(doc=6302,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.4123903 = fieldWeight in 6302, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Series

The Kluwer International series on information retrieval

Source

Cross-language information retrieval. Ed.: G. Grefenstette

0.069903165 = product of:
  0.11184507 = sum of:
    0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025048172 = score(doc=93,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
    0.044457585 = weight(_text_:use in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044457585 = score(doc=93,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.35158852 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
    0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018933605 = score(doc=93,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
    0.006621159 = product of:
      0.013242318 = sum of:
        0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013242318 = score(doc=93,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.016784549 = product of:
      0.033569098 = sum of:
        0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033569098 = score(doc=93,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 93, 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=93)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.625 = coord(5/8)

Abstract

This paper is about search of photos in photo databases of agencies which sell photos over the Internet. The problem is far from the behavior of photo databases managed by librarians and also far from the corpora generally used for research purposes. The descriptions use mainly single words and it is well known that it is not the best way to have a good search. This increases the problem of semantic ambiguity. This problem of semantic ambiguity is crucial for cross-language querying. On the other hand, users are not aware of documentation techniques and use generally very simple queries but want to get precise answers. This paper gives the experience gained in a 3 year use (2006-2008) of a cross-language access to several of the main international commercial photo databases. The languages used were French, English, and German.

Date

17. 4.2012 14:25:22

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

0.06432374 = product of:
  0.10291798 = sum of:
    0.04174695 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04174695 = score(doc=1022,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1022, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1022)
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 1022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=1022,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 1022, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1022)
    0.014758972 = weight(_text_:of in 1022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014758972 = score(doc=1022,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 1022, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1022)
    0.0110352645 = product of:
      0.022070529 = sum of:
        0.022070529 = weight(_text_:on in 1022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022070529 = score(doc=1022,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 1022, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1022)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 1022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=1022,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1022, 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=1022)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.625 = coord(5/8)

Abstract

Two probabilistic approaches to cross-lingual retrieval are in wide use today, those based on probabilistic models of relevance, as exemplified by INQUERY, and those based on language modeling. INQUERY, as a query net model, allows the easy incorporation of query operators, including a synonym operator, which has proven to be extremely useful in cross-language information retrieval (CLIR), in an approach often called structured query translation. In contrast, language models incorporate translation probabilities into a unified framework. We compare the two approaches on Arabic and Spanish data sets, using two kinds of bilingual dictionaries--one derived from a conventional dictionary, and one derived from a parallel corpus. We find that structured query processing gives slightly better results when queries are not expanded. On the other hand, when queries are expanded, language modeling gives better results, but only when using a probabilistic dictionary derived from a parallel corpus. We pursue two additional issues inherent in the comparison of structured query processing with language modeling. The first concerns query expansion, and the second is the role of translation probabilities. We compare conventional expansion techniques (pseudo-relevance feedback) with relevance modeling, a new IR approach which fits into the formal framework of language modeling. We find that relevance modeling and pseudo-relevance feedback achieve comparable levels of retrieval and that good translation probabilities confer a small but significant advantage.

Date

26.12.2007 20:22:11

0.0610175 = product of:
  0.122035 = sum of:
    0.04174695 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04174695 = score(doc=6299,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 6299, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=6299)
    0.015124777 = weight(_text_:use in 6299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015124777 = score(doc=6299,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.11961284 = fieldWeight in 6299, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=6299)
    0.015778005 = weight(_text_:of in 6299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015778005 = score(doc=6299,freq=64.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 6299, product of:
          8.0 = tf(freq=64.0), with freq of:
            64.0 = termFreq=64.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=6299)
    0.04938527 = sum of:
      0.013515383 = weight(_text_:on in 6299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013515383 = score(doc=6299,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.14880852 = fieldWeight in 6299, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=6299)
      0.035869885 = weight(_text_:line in 6299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035869885 = score(doc=6299,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.15489621 = fieldWeight in 6299, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=6299)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: GREFENSTETTE, G.: The Problem of Cross-Language Information Retrieval; DAVIS, M.W.: On the Effective Use of Large Parallel Corpora in Cross-Language Text Retrieval; BALLESTEROS, L. u. W.B. CROFT: Statistical Methods for Cross-Language Information Retrieval; Distributed Cross-Lingual Information Retrieval; Automatic Cross-Language Information Retrieval Using Latent Semantic Indexing; EVANS, D.A. u.a.: Mapping Vocabularies Using Latent Semantics; PICCHI, E. u. C. PETERS: Cross-Language Information Retrieval: A System for Comparable Corpus Querying; YAMABANA, K. u.a.: A Language Conversion Front-End for Cross-Language Information Retrieval; GACHOT, D.A. u.a.: The Systran NLP Browser: An Application of Machine Translation Technology in Cross-Language Information Retrieval; HULL, D.: A Weighted Boolean Model for Cross-Language Text Retrieval; SHERIDAN, P. u.a. Building a Large Multilingual Test Collection from Comparable News Documents; OARD; D.W. u. B.J. DORR: Evaluating Cross-Language Text Filtering Effectiveness

Footnote

Rez. in: Machine translation review: 1999, no.10, S.26-27 (D. Lewis): "Cross Language Information Retrieval (CLIR) addresses the growing need to access large volumes of data across language boundaries. The typical requirement is for the user to input a free form query, usually a brief description of a topic, into a search or retrieval engine which returns a list, in ranked order, of documents or web pages that are relevant to the topic. The search engine matches the terms in the query to indexed terms, usually keywords previously derived from the target documents. Unlike monolingual information retrieval, CLIR requires query terms in one language to be matched to indexed terms in another. Matching can be done by bilingual dictionary lookup, full machine translation, or by applying statistical methods. A query's success is measured in terms of recall (how many potentially relevant target documents are found) and precision (what proportion of documents found are relevant). Issues in CLIR are how to translate query terms into index terms, how to eliminate alternative translations (e.g. to decide that French 'traitement' in a query means 'treatment' and not 'salary'), and how to rank or weight translation alternatives that are retained (e.g. how to order the French terms 'aventure', 'business', 'affaire', and 'liaison' as relevant translations of English 'affair'). Grefenstette provides a lucid and useful overview of the field and the problems. The volume brings together a number of experiments and projects in CLIR. Mark Davies (New Mexico State University) describes Recuerdo, a Spanish retrieval engine which reduces translation ambiguities by scanning indexes for parallel texts; it also uses either a bilingual dictionary or direct equivalents from a parallel corpus in order to compare results for queries on parallel texts. Lisa Ballesteros and Bruce Croft (University of Massachusetts) use a 'local feedback' technique which automatically enhances a query by adding extra terms to it both before and after translation; such terms can be derived from documents known to be relevant to the query.
Christian Fluhr at al (DIST/SMTI, France) outline the EMIR (European Multilingual Information Retrieval) and ESPRIT projects. They found that using SYSTRAN to machine translate queries and to access material from various multilingual databases produced less relevant results than a method referred to as 'multilingual reformulation' (the mechanics of which are only hinted at). An interesting technique is Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI), described by Michael Littman et al (Brown University) and, most clearly, by David Evans et al (Carnegie Mellon University). LSI involves creating matrices of documents and the terms they contain and 'fitting' related documents into a reduced matrix space. This effectively allows queries to be mapped onto a common semantic representation of the documents. Eugenio Picchi and Carol Peters (Pisa) report on a procedure to create links between translation equivalents in an Italian-English parallel corpus. The links are used to construct parallel linguistic contexts in real-time for any term or combination of terms that is being searched for in either language. Their interest is primarily lexicographic but they plan to apply the same procedure to comparable corpora, i.e. to texts which are not translations of each other but which share the same domain. Kiyoshi Yamabana et al (NEC, Japan) address the issue of how to disambiguate between alternative translations of query terms. Their DMAX (double maximise) method looks at co-occurrence frequencies between both source language words and target language words in order to arrive at the most probable translation. The statistical data for the decision are derived, not from the translation texts but independently from monolingual corpora in each language. An interactive user interface allows the user to influence the selection of terms during the matching process. Denis Gachot et al (SYSTRAN) describe the SYSTRAN NLP browser, a prototype tool which collects parsing information derived from a text or corpus previously translated with SYSTRAN. The user enters queries into the browser in either a structured or free form and receives grammatical and lexical information about the source text and/or its translation.
The retrieved output from a query including the phrase 'big rockets' may be, for instance, a sentence containing 'giant rocket' which is semantically ranked above 'military ocket'. David Hull (Xerox Research Centre, Grenoble) describes an implementation of a weighted Boolean model for Spanish-English CLIR. Users construct Boolean-type queries, weighting each term in the query, which is then translated by an on-line dictionary before being applied to the database. Comparisons with the performance of unweighted free-form queries ('vector space' models) proved encouraging. Two contributions consider the evaluation of CLIR systems. In order to by-pass the time-consuming and expensive process of assembling a standard collection of documents and of user queries against which the performance of an CLIR system is manually assessed, Páriac Sheridan et al (ETH Zurich) propose a method based on retrieving 'seed documents'. This involves identifying a unique document in a database (the 'seed document') and, for a number of queries, measuring how fast it is retrieved. The authors have also assembled a large database of multilingual news documents for testing purposes. By storing the (fairly short) documents in a structured form tagged with descriptor codes (e.g. for topic, country and area), the test suite is easily expanded while remaining consistent for the purposes of testing. Douglas Ouard and Bonne Dorr (University of Maryland) describe an evaluation methodology which appears to apply LSI techniques in order to filter and rank incoming documents designed for testing CLIR systems. The volume provides the reader an excellent overview of several projects in CLIR. It is well supported with references and is intended as a secondary text for researchers and practitioners. It highlights the need for a good, general tutorial introduction to the field."

Series

The Kluwer International series on information retrieval

0.05351604 = product of:
  0.10703208 = sum of:
    0.06135524 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06135524 = score(doc=904,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.49118498 = fieldWeight in 904, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=904)
    0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025667597 = score(doc=904,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 904, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=904)
    0.013388081 = weight(_text_:of in 904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013388081 = score(doc=904,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 904, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=904)
    0.006621159 = product of:
      0.013242318 = sum of:
        0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013242318 = score(doc=904,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 904, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=904)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

This paper explores the integration of textual and visual information for cross-language image retrieval. An approach which automatically transforms textual queries into visual representations is proposed. First, we mine the relationships between text and images and employ the mined relationships to construct visual queries from textual ones. Then, the retrieval results of textual and visual queries are combined. To evaluate the proposed approach, we conduct English monolingual and Chinese-English cross-language retrieval experiments. The selection of suitable textual query terms to construct visual queries is the major issue. Experimental results show that the proposed approach improves retrieval performance, and use of nouns is appropriate to generate visual queries.

Footnote

Beitrag in: Special issue on AIRS2005: Information Retrieval Research in Asia

0.052385233 = product of:
  0.10477047 = sum of:
    0.04338471 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04338471 = score(doc=3697,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 3697, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3697)
    0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 3697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025667597 = score(doc=3697,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 3697, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3697)
    0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 3697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018933605 = score(doc=3697,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 3697, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3697)
    0.016784549 = product of:
      0.033569098 = sum of:
        0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 3697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033569098 = score(doc=3697,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3697, 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=3697)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

In order to enhance the use of Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) numbers in information retrieval, the authors have represented classification with multilingual thesaurus descriptors and implemented this solution in an automated way. The authors illustrate a solution implemented in a BiblioPhil library system. The standard formats used are UNIMARC for subject authority records (i.e. the UDC-based multilingual thesaurus) and MARC XML support for data transfer. The multilingual thesaurus was built according to existing standards, the constituent parts of the classification notations being used as the basis for search terms in the multilingual information retrieval. The verbal equivalents, descriptors and non-descriptors, are used to expand the number of concepts and are given in Romanian, English and French. This approach saves the time of the indexer and provides more user-friendly and easier access to the bibliographic information. The multilingual aspect of the thesaurus enhances information access for a greater number of online users

Date

22. 7.2010 20:40:56

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.0490637 = product of:
  0.0981274 = sum of:
    0.041327372 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041327372 = score(doc=7403,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 7403, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7403)
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 7403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=7403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 7403, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7403)
    0.019129815 = weight(_text_:of in 7403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019129815 = score(doc=7403,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 7403, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7403)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 7403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=7403,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 7403, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7403)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

Describes the TELMI monolingual text retrieval system and its future extension, a multilingual system. TELMI is designed for medium sized databases containing short texts. The characteristics of the system are fine-grained natural language processing (NLP); an open domain and a large scale knowledge base; automated indexing based on conceptual representation of texts and reusability of the NLP tools. Discusses the French MINITEL service, the MGS information service and the TELMI research system covering the full text system; NLP architecture; the lexical level; the syntactic level; the semantic level and an example of the use of a generic system

Source

Journal of document and text management. 1(1993) no.1, S.65-74

0.04890834 = product of:
  0.09781668 = sum of:
    0.041327372 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041327372 = score(doc=2798,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 2798, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2798)
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 2798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=2798,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 2798, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2798)
    0.015619429 = weight(_text_:of in 2798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015619429 = score(doc=2798,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 2798, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2798)
    0.010924355 = product of:
      0.02184871 = sum of:
        0.02184871 = weight(_text_:on in 2798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02184871 = score(doc=2798,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 2798, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2798)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

An issue currently at the forefront of digital library research is the prevalence of disparate terminologies and the associated limitations imposed on user searching. It is thought that semantic interoperability is achievable by improving the compatibility between terminologies and classification schemes, enabling users to search multiple resources simultaneously and improve retrieval effectiveness through the use of associated terms drawn from several schemes. This column considers the terminology issue before outlining various proposed methods of tackling it, with a particular focus on terminology mapping.

0.048154086 = product of:
  0.09630817 = sum of:
    0.056589838 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056589838 = score(doc=1164,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.45303512 = fieldWeight in 1164, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1164)
    0.014972764 = weight(_text_:use in 1164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014972764 = score(doc=1164,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.11841066 = fieldWeight in 1164, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1164)
    0.017020877 = weight(_text_:of in 1164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017020877 = score(doc=1164,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2635841 = fieldWeight in 1164, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1164)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 1164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=1164,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 1164, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

The explosive growth of the Internet and other sources of networked information have made automatic mediation of access to networked information sources an increasingly important problem. Much of this information is expressed as electronic text, and it is becoming practical to automatically convert some printed documents and recorded speech to electronic text as well. Thus, automated systems capable of detecting useful documents are finding widespread application. With even a small number of languages it can be inconvenient to issue the same query repeatedly in every language, so users who are able to read more than one language will likely prefer a multilingual text retrieval system over a collection of monolingual systems. And since reading ability in a language does not always imply fluent writing ability in that language, such users will likely find cross-language text retrieval particularly useful for languages in which they are less confident of their ability to express their information needs effectively. The use of such systems can be also be beneficial if the user is able to read only a single language. For example, when only a small portion of the document collection will ever be examined by the user, performing retrieval before translation can be significantly more economical than performing translation before retrieval. So when the application is sufficiently important to justify the time and effort required for translation, those costs can be minimized if an effective cross-language text retrieval system is available. Even when translation is not available, there are circumstances in which cross-language text retrieval could be useful to a monolingual user. For example, a researcher might find a paper published in an unfamiliar language useful if that paper contains references to works by the same author that are in the researcher's native language.
Multilingual text retrieval can be defined as selection of useful documents from collections that may contain several languages (English, French, Chinese, etc.). This formulation allows for the possibility that individual documents might contain more than one language, a common occurrence in some applications. Both cross-language and within-language retrieval are included in this formulation, but it is the cross-language aspect of the problem which distinguishes multilingual text retrieval from its well studied monolingual counterpart. At the SIGIR 96 workshop on "Cross-Linguistic Information Retrieval" the participants discussed the proliferation of terminology being used to describe the field and settled on "Cross-Language" as the best single description of the salient aspect of the problem. "Multilingual" was felt to be too broad, since that term has also been used to describe systems able to perform within-language retrieval in more than one language but that lack any cross-language capability. "Cross-lingual" and "cross-linguistic" were felt to be equally good descriptions of the field, but "crosslanguage" was selected as the preferred term in the interest of standardization. Unfortunately, at about the same time the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) introduced "translingual" as their preferred term, so we are still some distance from reaching consensus on this matter.
I will not attempt to draw a sharp distinction between retrieval and filtering in this survey. Although my own work on adaptive cross-language text filtering has led me to make this distinction fairly carefully in other presentations (c.f., (Oard 1997b)), such an proach does little to help understand the fundamental techniques which have been applied or the results that have been obtained in this case. Since it is still common to view filtering (detection of useful documents in dynamic document streams) as a kind of retrieval, will simply adopt that perspective here.

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.048027493 = product of:
  0.096054986 = sum of:
    0.035423465 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035423465 = score(doc=2394,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2394, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2394)
    0.036299463 = weight(_text_:use in 2394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036299463 = score(doc=2394,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2870708 = fieldWeight in 2394, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2394)
    0.014968331 = weight(_text_:of in 2394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014968331 = score(doc=2394,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 2394, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2394)
    0.009363732 = product of:
      0.018727465 = sum of:
        0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 2394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018727465 = score(doc=2394,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 2394, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2394)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

The need for promoting Multilingual Information Retrieval (MLIR) and Access (MLIA) has become evident, now more than ever, given the increase of the online information produced daily in languages other than English. This study aims to explore users' information needs when searching for information across languages. Specifically, the method of questionnaire was employed to shed light on the Library and Information Science (LIS) undergraduate students' use of search engines, databases, digital libraries when searching as well as their needs for multilingual access. This study contributes in informing the design of MLIR systems by focusing on the reasons and situations under which users would search and use information in multiple languages.

0.04500523 = product of:
  0.09001046 = sum of:
    0.04338471 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04338471 = score(doc=1302,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 1302, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1302)
    0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 1302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025667597 = score(doc=1302,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 1302, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1302)
    0.011594418 = weight(_text_:of in 1302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011594418 = score(doc=1302,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 1302, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1302)
    0.009363732 = product of:
      0.018727465 = sum of:
        0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 1302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018727465 = score(doc=1302,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 1302, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

This paper examines the reasons why approaches to facilitate document retrieval which apply AI (Artificial Intelligence) or Expert Systems techniques, relying on so-called "natural language" query statements from the end-user will result in sub-optimal solutions. It does so by reflecting on the nature of language and the fundamental problems in document retrieval. Support is given to the work of thesaurus builders and indexers with illustrations of how their work may be utilised in a generally applicable computer-based document retrieval system using Multilingual MenUSE software. The EuroMenUSE interface providing multilingual document access to EPOQUE, the European Parliament's Online Query System is described.

Source

Information as a Global Commodity - Communication, Processing and Use (CAIS/ACSI '93) : 21st Annual Conference Canadian Association for Information Science, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada. July 1993

0.04497591 = product of:
  0.071961455 = sum of:
    0.016698781 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016698781 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
    0.024199642 = weight(_text_:use in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024199642 = score(doc=2656,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.19138055 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
    0.0154592255 = weight(_text_:of in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0154592255 = score(doc=2656,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
    0.004414106 = product of:
      0.008828212 = sum of:
        0.008828212 = weight(_text_:on in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008828212 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.097201325 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0111897 = product of:
      0.0223794 = sum of:
        0.0223794 = weight(_text_:22 in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0223794 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2656, 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=2656)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.625 = coord(5/8)

Abstract

This poster explores the customization of DSpace to allow the use of the AGRIS Application Profile metadata standard and the AGROVOC thesaurus. The objective is the adaptation of DSpace, through the least invasive code changes either in the form of plug-ins or add-ons, to the specific needs of the Agricultural Sciences and Technology community. Metadata standards such as AGRIS AP, and Knowledge Organization Systems such as the AGROVOC thesaurus, provide mechanisms for sharing information in a standardized manner by recommending the use of common semantics and interoperable syntax (Subirats et al., 2007). AGRIS AP was created to enhance the description, exchange and subsequent retrieval of agricultural Document-like Information Objects (DLIOs). It is a metadata schema which draws from Metadata standards such as Dublin Core (DC), the Australian Government Locator Service Metadata (AGLS) and the Agricultural Metadata Element Set (AgMES) namespaces. It allows sharing of information across dispersed bibliographic systems (FAO, 2005). AGROVOC68 is a multilingual structured thesaurus covering agricultural and related domains. Its main role is to standardize the indexing process in order to make searching simpler and more efficient. AGROVOC is developed by FAO (Lauser et al., 2006). The customization of the DSpace is taking place in several phases. First, the AGRIS AP metadata schema was mapped onto the metadata DSpace model, with several enhancements implemented to support AGRIS AP elements. Next, AGROVOC will be integrated as a controlled vocabulary accessed through a local SKOS or OWL file. Eventually the system will be configurable to access AGROVOC through local files or remotely via webservices. Finally, spell checking and tooltips will be incorporated in the user interface to support metadata editing. Adapting DSpace to support AGRIS AP and annotation using the semantically-rich AGROVOC thesaurus transform DSpace into a powerful, domain-specific system for annotation and exchange of bibliographic metadata in the agricultural domain.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.044328105 = product of:
  0.08865621 = sum of:
    0.036153924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036153924 = score(doc=513,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 513, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=513)
    0.030249555 = weight(_text_:use in 513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030249555 = score(doc=513,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 513, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=513)
    0.0167351 = weight(_text_:of in 513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0167351 = score(doc=513,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 513, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=513)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=513,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 513, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=513)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

Wikipedia is characterized by its dense link structure and a large number of articles in different languages, which make it a notable Web corpus for knowledge extraction and mining, in particular for mining the multilingual associations. In this paper, motivated by a psychological theory of word meaning, we propose a graph-based approach to constructing a cross-language association dictionary (CLAD) from Wikipedia, which can be used in a variety of cross-language accessing and processing applications. In order to evaluate the quality of the mined CLAD, and to demonstrate how the mined CLAD can be used in practice, we explore two different applications of the mined CLAD to cross-language information retrieval (CLIR). First, we use the mined CLAD to conduct cross-language query expansion; and, second, we use it to filter out translation candidates with low translation probabilities. Experimental results on a variety of standard CLIR test collections show that the CLIR retrieval performance can be substantially improved with the above two applications of CLAD, which indicates that the mined CLAD is of sound quality.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.12, S.2474-2487

0.044290036 = product of:
  0.08858007 = sum of:
    0.04174695 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04174695 = score(doc=1089,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1089, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1089)
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 1089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=1089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 1089, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1089)
    0.017640345 = weight(_text_:of in 1089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017640345 = score(doc=1089,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 1089, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1089)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 1089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=1089,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 1089, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

For many years, the Web became an important media for the diffusion of multilingual resources. Linguistic differenees still form a major obstacle to scientific, cultural, and educational exchange. Besides this linguistic diversity, a multitude of databases and collections now contain documents in various formats, which may also adversely affect the retrieval process. This paper describes a research project aiming to verify the existing relations between two indexing approaches: traditional image indexing recommending the use of controlled vocabularies or free image indexing using uncontrolled vocabulary, and their respective performance for image retrieval, in a multilingual context. This research also compares image retrieval within two contexts: a monolingual context where the language of the query is the same as the indexing language; and a multilingual context where the language of the query is different from the indexing language. This research will indicate whether one of these indexing approaches surpasses the other, in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of the image searchers. This paper presents the context and the problem statement of the research project. The experiment carried out is also described, as well as the data collection methods

0.043340098 = product of:
  0.086680196 = sum of:
    0.036153924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036153924 = score(doc=2750,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 2750, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2750)
    0.030249555 = weight(_text_:use in 2750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030249555 = score(doc=2750,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 2750, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2750)
    0.012473608 = weight(_text_:of in 2750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012473608 = score(doc=2750,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 2750, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2750)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 2750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=2750,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 2750, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2750)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

This paper proposes a learning approach for the merging process in multilingual information retrieval (MLIR). To conduct the learning approach, we present a number of features that may influence the MLIR merging process. These features are mainly extracted from three levels: query, document, and translation. After the feature extraction, we then use the FRank ranking algorithm to construct a merge model. To the best of our knowledge, this practice is the first attempt to use a learning-based ranking algorithm to construct a merge model for MLIR merging. In our experiments, three test collections for the task of crosslingual information retrieval (CLIR) in NTCIR3, 4, and 5 are employed to assess the performance of our proposed method. Moreover, several merging methods are also carried out for a comparison, including traditional merging methods, the 2-step merging strategy, and the merging method based on logistic regression. The experimental results show that our proposed method can significantly improve merging quality on two different types of datasets. In addition to the effectiveness, through the merge model generated by FRank, our method can further identify key factors that influence the merging process. This information might provide us more insight and understanding into MLIR merging.

0.04283002 = product of:
  0.08566004 = sum of:
    0.040903494 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040903494 = score(doc=3946,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.32745665 = fieldWeight in 3946, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3946)
    0.01711173 = weight(_text_:use in 3946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01711173 = score(doc=3946,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.13532647 = fieldWeight in 3946, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3946)
    0.021402327 = weight(_text_:of in 3946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021402327 = score(doc=3946,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33143494 = fieldWeight in 3946, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3946)
    0.0062424885 = product of:
      0.012484977 = sum of:
        0.012484977 = weight(_text_:on in 3946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012484977 = score(doc=3946,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.13746344 = fieldWeight in 3946, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to examine image retrieval within two different contexts: a monolingual context where the language of the query is the same as the indexing language and a multilingual context where the language of the query is different from the indexing language. The study also aims to compare two different approaches for the indexing of ordinary images representing common objects: traditional image indexing with the use of a controlled vocabulary and free image indexing using uncontrolled vocabulary. Design/methodology/approach - This research uses three data collection methods. An analysis of the indexing terms was employed in order to examine the multiplicity of term types assigned to images. A simulation of the retrieval process involving a set of 30 images was performed with 60 participants. The quantification of the retrieval performance of each indexing approach was based on the usability measures, that is, effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction of the user. Finally, a questionnaire was used to gather information on searcher satisfaction during and after the retrieval process. Findings - The results of this research are twofold. The analysis of indexing terms associated with all the 3,950 images provides a comprehensive description of the characteristics of the four non-combined indexing forms used for the study. Also, the retrieval simulation results offers information about the relative performance of the six indexing forms (combined and non-combined) in terms of their effectiveness, efficiency (temporal and human) and the image searcher's satisfaction. Originality/value - The findings of the study suggest that, in the near future, the information systems could benefit from allowing an increased coexistence of controlled vocabularies and uncontrolled vocabularies, resulting from collaborative image tagging, for example, and giving the users the possibility to dynamically participate in the image-indexing process, in a more user-centred way.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Special Issue: Content architecture: exploiting and managing diverse resources: proceedings of the first national conference of the United Kingdom chapter of the International Society for Knowedge Organization (ISKO)

0.04258352 = product of:
  0.08516704 = sum of:
    0.04174695 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04174695 = score(doc=5054,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 5054, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5054)
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 5054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=5054,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 5054, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5054)
    0.012473608 = weight(_text_:of in 5054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012473608 = score(doc=5054,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 5054, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5054)
    0.00955682 = product of:
      0.01911364 = sum of:
        0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 5054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01911364 = score(doc=5054,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 5054, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

As increasing numbers of non-English resources have become available on the Web, the interesting and important issue of how Web users can retrieve documents in different languages has arisen. Cross-language information retrieval (CLIP), the study of retrieving information in one language by queries expressed in another language, is a promising approach to the problem. Cross-language information retrieval has attracted much attention in recent years. Most research systems have achieved satisfactory performance on standard Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) collections such as news articles, but CLIR techniques have not been widely studied and evaluated for applications such as Web portals. In this article, the authors present their research in developing and evaluating a multilingual English-Chinese Web portal that incorporates various CLIP techniques for use in the business domain. A dictionary-based approach was adopted and combines phrasal translation, co-occurrence analysis, and pre- and posttranslation query expansion. The portal was evaluated by domain experts, using a set of queries in both English and Chinese. The experimental results showed that co-occurrence-based phrasal translation achieved a 74.6% improvement in precision over simple word-byword translation. When used together, pre- and posttranslation query expansion improved the performance slightly, achieving a 78.0% improvement over the baseline word-by-word translation approach. In general, applying CLIR techniques in Web applications shows promise.

Footnote

Beitrag einer special topic section on multilingual information systems

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.5, S.671-683

0.042524934 = product of:
  0.11339982 = sum of:
    0.08676942 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08676942 = score(doc=6301,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.6946405 = fieldWeight in 6301, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6301)
    0.013388081 = weight(_text_:of in 6301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013388081 = score(doc=6301,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 6301, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6301)
    0.013242318 = product of:
      0.026484637 = sum of:
        0.026484637 = weight(_text_:on in 6301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026484637 = score(doc=6301,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 6301, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6301)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Series

The Kluwer International series on information retrieval

Source

Cross-language information retrieval. Ed.: G. Grefenstette

0.041553866 = product of:
  0.08310773 = sum of:
    0.051129367 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051129367 = score(doc=5282,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.40932083 = fieldWeight in 5282, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5282)
    0.012473608 = weight(_text_:of in 5282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012473608 = score(doc=5282,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 5282, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5282)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 5282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=5282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 5282, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 5282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=5282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5282, 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=5282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

The Web has become a large repository of documents (or pages) written in many different languages. In this context, traditional information retrieval (IR) techniques cannot be used whenever the user query and the documents being retrieved are in different languages. To address this problem, new cross-language information retrieval (CLIR) techniques have been proposed. In this work, we describe a method for cross-language retrieval of medical information. This method combines query terms and related medical concepts obtained automatically through a categorization procedure. The medical concepts are used to create a linguistic abstraction that allows retrieval of information in a language-independent way, minimizing linguistic problems such as polysemy. To evaluate our method, we carried out experiments using the OHSUMED test collection, whose documents are written in English, with queries expressed in Portuguese, Spanish, and French. The results indicate that our cross-language retrieval method is as effective as a standard vector space model algorithm operating on queries and documents in the same language. Further, our results are better than previous results in the literature.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:46:36

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.4, S.501-510

0.041024607 = product of:
  0.08204921 = sum of:
    0.035423465 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035423465 = score(doc=1606,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 1606, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1606)
    0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 1606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025667597 = score(doc=1606,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 1606, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1606)
    0.011594418 = weight(_text_:of in 1606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011594418 = score(doc=1606,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 1606, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1606)
    0.009363732 = product of:
      0.018727465 = sum of:
        0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 1606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018727465 = score(doc=1606,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 1606, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1606)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

This article explores how best to use lexical and statistical translation evidence together for cross-language information retrieval (CLIR). Lexical translation evidence is assembled from Wikipedia and from a large machine-readable dictionary, statistical translation evidence is drawn from parallel corpora, and evidence from co-occurrence in the document language provides a basis for limiting the adverse effect of translation ambiguity. Coverage statistics for NII Testbeds and Community for Information Access Research (NTCIR) queries confirm that these resources have complementary strengths. Experiments with translation evidence from a small parallel corpus indicate that even rather rough estimates of translation probabilities can yield further improvements over a strong technique for translation weighting based on using Jensen-Shannon divergence as a term-association measure. Finally, a novel approach to posttranslation query expansion using a random walk over the Wikipedia concept link graph is shown to yield further improvements over alternative techniques for posttranslation query expansion. Evaluation results on the NTCIR-5 English-Korean test collection show statistically significant improvements over strong baselines.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.1, S.23-39