Search (101 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval"
  1. Faaborg, A.; Lagoze, C.: Semantic browsing (2003) 0.08
    0.07509575 = product of:
      0.120153196 = sum of:
        0.029222867 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029222867 = score(doc=1026,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1026, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1026)
        0.042349376 = weight(_text_:use in 1026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042349376 = score(doc=1026,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.33491597 = fieldWeight in 1026, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1026)
        0.015619429 = weight(_text_:of in 1026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015619429 = score(doc=1026,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 1026, 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=1026)
        0.013379549 = product of:
          0.026759097 = sum of:
            0.026759097 = weight(_text_:on in 1026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.026759097 = score(doc=1026,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 1026, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1026)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.019581974 = product of:
          0.039163947 = sum of:
            0.039163947 = weight(_text_:22 in 1026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.039163947 = score(doc=1026,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1026, 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=1026)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.625 = coord(5/8)
    
    Abstract
    We have created software applications that allow users to both author and use Semantic Web metadata. To create and use a layer of semantic content on top of the existing Web, we have (1) implemented a user interface that expedites the task of attributing metadata to resources on the Web, and (2) augmented a Web browser to leverage this semantic metadata to provide relevant information and tasks to the user. This project provides a framework for annotating and reorganizing existing files, pages, and sites on the Web that is similar to Vannevar Bushrsquos original concepts of trail blazing and associative indexing.
    Source
    Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 7th European Conference, proceedings / ECDL 2003, Trondheim, Norway, August 17-22, 2003
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  2. Case, D.O.: Looking for information : a survey on research on information seeking, needs, and behavior (2002) 0.06
    0.062973216 = product of:
      0.12594643 = sum of:
        0.03067762 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03067762 = score(doc=1270,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24559249 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
        0.022228792 = weight(_text_:use in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022228792 = score(doc=1270,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17579426 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
        0.02063242 = weight(_text_:of in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02063242 = score(doc=1270,freq=76.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3195122 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
              8.717798 = tf(freq=76.0), with freq of:
                76.0 = termFreq=76.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
        0.052407596 = sum of:
          0.009363732 = weight(_text_:on in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.009363732 = score(doc=1270,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.10309757 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
          0.043043863 = weight(_text_:line in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043043863 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.18587546 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Footnote
    Rez. in: JASIST 54(2003) no.7, S.695-697 (R. Savolainen): "Donald O. Case has written an ambitious book to create an overall picture of the major approaches to information needs and seeking (INS) studies. The aim to write an extensive review is reflected in the list of references containing about 700 items. The high ambitions are explained an p. 14, where Case states that he is aiming at a multidisciplinary understanding of the concept of information seeking. In the Preface, the author characterizes his book as an introduction to the topic for students at the graduate level, as well as as a review and handbook for scholars engagged in information behavior research. In my view, Looking for Information is particularly welcome as an academic textbook because the field of INS studies suffers from the lack of monographs. Along with the continuous growth of the number of journal articles and conference papers, there is a genuine need for a book that picks up the numerous pieces and puts them together. The use of the study as a textbook is facilitated by clearly delineated sections an major themes and the wealth of concrete examples of information seeking in everyday contexts. The book is lucidly written and it is accessible to novice readers, too. At first glance, the idea of providing a comprehensive review of INS studies may seem a mission impossible because the current number of articles, papers, and other contributions in this field is nearing the 10,000 range (p. 224). Donald Case is not alone in the task of coming to grips with an increasing number of studies; similar problems have been faced by those writing INS-related chapters for the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST). Case has solved the problem of "too many publications to be reviewed" by concentrating an the INS literature published during the last two decades. Secondly, studies an library use and information retrieval are discussed only to a limited extent. In addition, Case is highly selective as to studies focusing an the use of specific sources and channels such as WWW. These delineations are reasonable, even though they beg some questions. First, how should one draw the line between studies an information seeking and information retrieval? Case does not discuss this question in greater detail, although in recent years, the overlapping areas of information seeking and retrieval studies have been broadened, along with the growing importance of WWW in information seeking/retrieval. Secondly, how can one define the concept of information searching (or, more specifically, Internet or Web searching) in relation to information seeking and information retrieval? In the field of Web searching studies, there is an increasing number of contributions that are of direct relevance to information-seeking studies. Clearly, the advent of the Internet, particularly, the Web, has blurred the previous lines between INS and IR literature, making them less clear cut. The book consists of five main sections, and comprises 13 chapters. There is an Appendix serving the needs of an INS textbook (questions for discussion and application). The structure of the book is meticulously planned and, as a whole, it offers a sufficiently balanced contribution to theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues of INS. The title, Looking for Information: A Survey of Research an Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior aptly describes the main substance of the book. . . . It is easy to agree with Case about the significance of the problem of specialization and fragmentation. This problem seems to be concomitant with the broadening field of INS research. In itself, Case's book can be interpreted as a struggle against this fragmentation. His book suggests that this struggle is not hopeless and that it is still possible to draw an overall picture of the evolving research field. The major pieces of the puzzle were found and the book will provide a useful overview of INS studies for many years."
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  3. Efthimiadis, E.N.: Interactive query expansion : a user-based evaluation in a relevance feedback environment (2000) 0.06
    0.05606333 = product of:
      0.14950222 = sum of:
        0.033397563 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033397563 = score(doc=5701,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 5701, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5701)
        0.01728394 = weight(_text_:of in 5701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01728394 = score(doc=5701,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.26765788 = fieldWeight in 5701, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5701)
        0.098820716 = sum of:
          0.017656423 = weight(_text_:on in 5701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.017656423 = score(doc=5701,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 5701, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5701)
          0.08116429 = weight(_text_:line in 5701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.08116429 = score(doc=5701,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.35049015 = fieldWeight in 5701, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5701)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    A user-centered investigation of interactive query expansion within the context of a relevance feedback system is presented in this article. Data were collected from 25 searches using the INSPEC database. The data collection mechanisms included questionnaires, transaction logs, and relevance evaluations. The results discuss issues that relate to query expansion, retrieval effectiveness, the correspondence of the on-line-to-off-line relevance judgments, and the selection of terms for query expansion by users (interactive query expansion). The main conclusions drawn from the results of the study are that: (1) one-third of the terms presented to users in a list of candidate terms for query expansion was identified by the users as potentially useful for query expansion. (2) These terms were mainly judged as either variant expressions (synonyms) or alternative (related) terms to the initial query terms. However, a substantial portion of the selected terms were identified as representing new ideas. (3) The relationships identified between the five best terms selected by the users for query expansion and the initial query terms were that: (a) 34% of the query expansion terms have no relationship or other type of correspondence with a query term; (b) 66% of the remaining query expansion terms have a relationship to the query terms. These relationships were: narrower term (46%), broader term (3%), related term (17%). (4) The results provide evidence for the effectiveness of interactive query expansion. The initial search produced on average three highly relevant documents; the query expansion search produced on average nine further highly relevant documents. The conclusions highlight the need for more research on: interactive query expansion, the comparative evaluation of automatic vs. interactive query expansion, the study of weighted Webbased or Web-accessible retrieval systems in operational environments, and for user studies in searching ranked retrieval systems in general
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.11, S.989-1003
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  4. Ng, K.B.: Toward a theoretical framework for understanding the relationship between situated action and planned action models of behavior in information retrieval contexts : contributions from phenomenology (2002) 0.05
    0.05385488 = product of:
      0.14361301 = sum of:
        0.036153924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036153924 = score(doc=2588,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 2588, 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=2588)
        0.02011309 = weight(_text_:of in 2588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02011309 = score(doc=2588,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 2588, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2588)
        0.087345995 = sum of:
          0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 2588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.015606222 = score(doc=2588,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 2588, 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=2588)
          0.07173977 = weight(_text_:line in 2588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.07173977 = score(doc=2588,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 2588, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2588)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    In human-computer interaction (HCI), a successful interaction sequence can take its own momentum and drift away from what the user has originally planned. However, this does not mean that planned actions play no important role in the overall performance. In this paper, the author tries to construct a line of argument to demonstrate that it is impossible to consider an action without an a priori plan, even according to the phenomenological position taken for granted by the situated action theory. Based on the phenomenological analysis of problematic situations and typification the author argues that, just like "situated-ness", "planned-ness" of an action should also be understood in the context of the situation. Successful plan can be developed and executed for familiar context. The first part of the paper treats information seeking behavior as a special type of social action and applies Alfred Schutz's phenomenology of sociology to understand the importance and necessity of plan. The second part reports results of a quasi-experiment focusing on plan deviation within an information seeking context. It was found that when the searcher's situation changed from problematic to non-problematic, the degree of plan deviation decreased significantly. These results support the argument proposed in the first part of the paper.
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft: "Issues of context in information retrieval (IR)"
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  5. Sanderson, M.; Lawrie, D.: Building, testing, and applying concept hierarchies (2000) 0.05
    0.053260405 = product of:
      0.10652081 = sum of:
        0.050096344 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050096344 = score(doc=37,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 37, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=37)
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=37,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 37, 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=37)
        0.024135707 = weight(_text_:of in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024135707 = score(doc=37,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 37, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=37)
        0.006621159 = product of:
          0.013242318 = sum of:
            0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013242318 = score(doc=37,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 37, 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=37)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    A means of automatically deriving a hierarchical organization of concepts from a set of documents without use of training data or standard clustering techniques is presented. Using a process that extracts salient words and phrases from the documents, these terms are organized hierarchically using a type of co-occurrence known as subsumption. The resulting structure is displayed as a series of hierarchical menus. When generated from a set of retrieved documents, a user browsing the menus gains an overview of their content in a manner distinct from existing techniques. The methods used to build the structure are simple and appear to be effective. The formation and presentation of the hierarchy is described along with a study of some of its properties, including a preliminary experiment, which indicates that users may find the hierarchy a more efficient means of locating relevant documents than the classic method of scanning a ranked document list
    Series
    The Kluwer international series on information retrieval; 7
    Source
    Advances in information retrieval: Recent research from the Center for Intelligent Information Retrieval. Ed.: W.B. Croft
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  6. Sacco, G.M.: Dynamic taxonomies and guided searches (2006) 0.05
    0.04899833 = product of:
      0.09799666 = sum of:
        0.041327372 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041327372 = score(doc=5295,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 5295, 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=5295)
        0.013526822 = weight(_text_:of in 5295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013526822 = score(doc=5295,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 5295, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5295)
        0.01544937 = product of:
          0.03089874 = sum of:
            0.03089874 = weight(_text_:on in 5295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03089874 = score(doc=5295,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.34020463 = fieldWeight in 5295, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5295)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.027693095 = product of:
          0.05538619 = sum of:
            0.05538619 = weight(_text_:22 in 5295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05538619 = score(doc=5295,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 5295, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5295)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    A new search paradigm, in which the primary user activity is the guided exploration of a complex information space rather than the retrieval of items based on precise specifications, is proposed. The author claims that this paradigm is the norm in most practical applications, and that solutions based on traditional search methods are not effective in this context. He then presents a solution based on dynamic taxonomies, a knowledge management model that effectively guides users to reach their goal while giving them total freedom in exploring the information base. Applications, benefits, and current research are discussed.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 17:56:22
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einer Special Section "Perspectives on Search User Interfaces: Best Practices and Future Visions"
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.6, S.792-796
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  7. Wolfram, D.; Xie, H.I.: Traditional IR for web users : a context for general audience digital libraries (2002) 0.05
    0.046396725 = product of:
      0.09279345 = sum of:
        0.036153924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036153924 = score(doc=2589,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 2589, 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=2589)
        0.030249555 = weight(_text_:use in 2589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030249555 = score(doc=2589,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 2589, 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=2589)
        0.02087234 = weight(_text_:of in 2589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02087234 = score(doc=2589,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 2589, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2589)
        0.0055176322 = product of:
          0.0110352645 = sum of:
            0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 2589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0110352645 = score(doc=2589,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2589, 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=2589)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    The emergence of general audience digital libraries (GADLs) defines a context that represents a hybrid of both "traditional" IR, using primarily bibliographic resources provided by database vendors, and "popular" IR, exemplified by public search systems available on the World Wide Web. Findings of a study investigating end-user searching and response to a GADL are reported. Data collected from a Web-based end-user survey and data logs of resource usage for a Web-based GADL were analyzed for user characteristics, patterns of access and use, and user feedback. Cross-tabulations using respondent demographics revealed several key differences in how the system was used and valued by users of different age groups. Older users valued the service more than younger users and engaged in different searching and viewing behaviors. The GADL more closely resembles traditional retrieval systems in terms of content and purpose of use, but is more similar to popular IR systems in terms of user behavior and accessibility. A model that defines the dual context of the GADL environment is derived from the data analysis and existing IR models in general and other specific contexts. The authors demonstrate the distinguishing characteristics of this IR context, and discuss implications for the development and evaluation of future GADLs to accommodate a variety of user needs and expectations.
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft: "Issues of context in information retrieval (IR)"
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  8. Shiri, A.; Revie, C.: Usability and user perceptions of a thesaurus-enhanced search interface (2005) 0.05
    0.04626683 = product of:
      0.09253366 = sum of:
        0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020873476 = score(doc=4331,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4331, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4331)
        0.04277933 = weight(_text_:use in 4331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04277933 = score(doc=4331,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3383162 = fieldWeight in 4331, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4331)
        0.019324033 = weight(_text_:of in 4331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019324033 = score(doc=4331,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 4331, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4331)
        0.00955682 = product of:
          0.01911364 = sum of:
            0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 4331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01911364 = score(doc=4331,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 4331, 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=4331)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper seeks to report an investigation into the ways in which end-users perceive a thesaurus-enhanced search interface, in particular thesaurus and search interface usability. Design/methodology/approach - Thirty academic users, split between staff and postgraduate students, carrying out real search requests were observed during this study. Users were asked to comment on a range of thesaurus and interface characteristics including: ease of use, ease of learning, ease of browsing and navigation, problems and difficulties encountered while interacting with the system, and the effect of browsing on search term selection. Findings - The results suggest that interface usability is a factor affecting thesaurus browsing/navigation and other information-searching behaviours. Academic staff viewed the function of a thesaurus as being useful for narrowing down a search and providing alternative search terms, while postgraduates stressed the role of the thesaurus for broadening searches and providing new terms. Originality/value - The paper provides an insight into the ways in which end-users make use of and interact with a thesaurus-enhanced search interface. This area is new since previous research has particularly focused on how professional searchers and librarians make use of thesauri and thesaurus-enhanced search interfaces. The research reported here suggests that end-users with varying levels of domain knowledge are able to use thesauri that are integrated into search interfaces. It also provides design implications for search interface developers as well as information professionals who are involved in teaching online searching.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 61(2005) no.5, S.640-656
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  9. Bradford, R.B.: Relationship discovery in large text collections using Latent Semantic Indexing (2006) 0.04
    0.04386019 = product of:
      0.0701763 = sum of:
        0.016698781 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016698781 = score(doc=1163,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 1163, 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=1163)
        0.01711173 = weight(_text_:use in 1163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01711173 = score(doc=1163,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.13532647 = fieldWeight in 1163, 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=1163)
        0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 1163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018933605 = score(doc=1163,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1163, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1163)
        0.0062424885 = product of:
          0.012484977 = sum of:
            0.012484977 = weight(_text_:on in 1163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.012484977 = score(doc=1163,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.13746344 = fieldWeight in 1163, 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=1163)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.0111897 = product of:
          0.0223794 = sum of:
            0.0223794 = weight(_text_:22 in 1163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0223794 = score(doc=1163,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1163, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1163)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.625 = coord(5/8)
    
    Abstract
    This paper addresses the problem of information discovery in large collections of text. For users, one of the key problems in working with such collections is determining where to focus their attention. In selecting documents for examination, users must be able to formulate reasonably precise queries. Queries that are too broad will greatly reduce the efficiency of information discovery efforts by overwhelming the users with peripheral information. In order to formulate efficient queries, a mechanism is needed to automatically alert users regarding potentially interesting information contained within the collection. This paper presents the results of an experiment designed to test one approach to generation of such alerts. The technique of latent semantic indexing (LSI) is used to identify relationships among entities of interest. Entity extraction software is used to pre-process the text of the collection so that the LSI space contains representation vectors for named entities in addition to those for individual terms. In the LSI space, the cosine of the angle between the representation vectors for two entities captures important information regarding the degree of association of those two entities. For appropriate choices of entities, determining the entity pairs with the highest mutual cosine values yields valuable information regarding the contents of the text collection. The test database used for the experiment consists of 150,000 news articles. The proposed approach for alert generation is tested using a counterterrorism analysis example. The approach is shown to have significant potential for aiding users in rapidly focusing on information of potential importance in large text collections. The approach also has value in identifying possible use of aliases.
    Source
    Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Link Analysis, Counterterrorism, and Security, SIAM Data Mining Conference, Bethesda, MD, 20-22 April, 2006. [http://www.siam.org/meetings/sdm06/workproceed/Link%20Analysis/15.pdf]
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  10. Bayer, O.; Höhfeld, S.; Josbächer, F.; Kimm, N.; Kradepohl, I.; Kwiatkowski, M.; Puschmann, C.; Sabbagh, M.; Werner, N.; Vollmer, U.: Evaluation of an ontology-based knowledge-management-system : a case study of Convera RetrievalWare 8.0 (2005) 0.04
    0.03901589 = product of:
      0.07803178 = sum of:
        0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029519552 = score(doc=624,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 624, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=624)
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=624,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 624, 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=624)
        0.021604925 = weight(_text_:of in 624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021604925 = score(doc=624,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 624, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=624)
        0.0055176322 = product of:
          0.0110352645 = sum of:
            0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0110352645 = score(doc=624,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 624, 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=624)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    With RetrievalWare 8.0(TM) the American company Convera offers an elaborated software in the range of Information Retrieval, Information Indexing and Knowledge Management. Convera promises the possibility of handling different file formats in many different languages. Regarding comparable products one innovation is to be stressed particularly: the possibility of the preparation as well as integration of an ontology. One tool of the software package is useful in order to produce ontologies manually, to process existing ontologies and to import the very. The processing of search results is also to be mentioned. By means of categorization strategies search results can be classified dynamically and presented in personalized representations. This study presents an evaluation of the functions and components of the system. Technological aspects and modes of operation under the surface of Convera RetrievalWare will be analysed, with a focus on the creation of libraries and thesauri, and the problems posed by the integration of an existing thesaurus. Broader aspects such as usability and system ergonomics are integrated in the examination as well.
    Source
    Information services and use. 25(2005), S.181-195
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  11. Kelly, D.: Measuring online information seeking context : Part 1: background and method (2006) 0.04
    0.03860684 = product of:
      0.07721368 = sum of:
        0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029519552 = score(doc=206,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 206, 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=206)
        0.01850135 = weight(_text_:of in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01850135 = score(doc=206,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
        0.007803111 = product of:
          0.015606222 = sum of:
            0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015606222 = score(doc=206,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 206, 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=206)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    Context is one of the most important concepts in information seeking and retrieval research. However, the challenges of studying context are great; thus, it is more common for researchers to use context as a post hoc explanatory factor, rather than as a concept that drives inquiry. The purposes of this study were to develop a method for collecting data about information seeking context in natural online environments, and identify which aspects of context should be considered when studying online information seeking. The study is reported in two parts. In this, the first part, the background and method are presented. Results and implications of this research are presented in Part 2 (Kelly, in press). Part 1 discusses previous literature on information seeking context and behavior and situates the current work within this literature. This part further describes the naturalistic, longitudinal research design that was used to examine and measure the online information seeking contexts of users during a 14-week period. In this design, information seeking context was characterized by a user's self-identified tasks and topics, and several attributes of these, such as the length of time the user expected to work on a task and the user's familiarity with a topic. At weekly intervals, users evaluated the usefulness of the documents that they viewed, and classified these documents according to their tasks and topics. At the end of the study, users provided feedback about the study method.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.13, S.1729-1739
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  12. Kelly, D.: Measuring online information seeking context : Part 2: Findings and discussion (2006) 0.04
    0.0374641 = product of:
      0.0749282 = sum of:
        0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029519552 = score(doc=215,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 215, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=215)
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 215, 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=215)
        0.01850135 = weight(_text_:of in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01850135 = score(doc=215,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 215, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=215)
        0.0055176322 = product of:
          0.0110352645 = sum of:
            0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0110352645 = score(doc=215,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 215, 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=215)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    Context is one of the most important concepts in information seeking and retrieval research. However, the challenges of studying context are great; thus, it is more common for researchers to use context as a post hoc explanatory factor, rather than as a concept that drives inquiry. The purpose of this study was to develop a method for collecting data about information seeking context in natural online environments, and identify which aspects of context should be considered when studying online information seeking. The study is reported in two parts. In this, the second part, results and implications of this research are presented. Part 1 (Kelly, 2006) discussed previous literature on information seeking context and behavior, situated the current study within this literature, and described the naturalistic, longitudinal research design that was used to examine and measure the online information seeking context of seven users during a 14-week period. Results provide support for the value of the method in studying online information seeking context, the relative importance of various measures of context, how these measures change over time, and, finally, the relationship between these measures. In particular, results demonstrate significant differences in distributions of usefulness ratings according to task and topic.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.14, S.1862-1874
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  13. Zhang, J.; Mostafa, J.; Tripathy, H.: Information retrieval by semantic analysis and visualization of the concept space of D-Lib® magazine (2002) 0.04
    0.036912464 = product of:
      0.07382493 = sum of:
        0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029519552 = score(doc=1211,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
        0.023914373 = weight(_text_:use in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023914373 = score(doc=1211,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.18912451 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
        0.014222101 = weight(_text_:of in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014222101 = score(doc=1211,freq=52.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.22024246 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
              7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
                52.0 = termFreq=52.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
        0.006168901 = product of:
          0.012337802 = sum of:
            0.012337802 = weight(_text_:on in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.012337802 = score(doc=1211,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.135843 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    In this article we present a method for retrieving documents from a digital library through a visual interface based on automatically generated concepts. We used a vocabulary generation algorithm to generate a set of concepts for the digital library and a technique called the max-min distance technique to cluster them. Additionally, the concepts were visualized in a spring embedding graph layout to depict the semantic relationship among them. The resulting graph layout serves as an aid to users for retrieving documents. An online archive containing the contents of D-Lib Magazine from July 1995 to May 2002 was used to test the utility of an implemented retrieval and visualization system. We believe that the method developed and tested can be applied to many different domains to help users get a better understanding of online document collections and to minimize users' cognitive load during execution of search tasks. Over the past few years, the volume of information available through the World Wide Web has been expanding exponentially. Never has so much information been so readily available and shared among so many people. Unfortunately, the unstructured nature and huge volume of information accessible over networks have made it hard for users to sift through and find relevant information. To deal with this problem, information retrieval (IR) techniques have gained more intensive attention from both industrial and academic researchers. Numerous IR techniques have been developed to help deal with the information overload problem. These techniques concentrate on mathematical models and algorithms for retrieval. Popular IR models such as the Boolean model, the vector-space model, the probabilistic model and their variants are well established.
    From the user's perspective, however, it is still difficult to use current information retrieval systems. Users frequently have problems expressing their information needs and translating those needs into queries. This is partly due to the fact that information needs cannot be expressed appropriately in systems terms. It is not unusual for users to input search terms that are different from the index terms information systems use. Various methods have been proposed to help users choose search terms and articulate queries. One widely used approach is to incorporate into the information system a thesaurus-like component that represents both the important concepts in a particular subject area and the semantic relationships among those concepts. Unfortunately, the development and use of thesauri is not without its own problems. The thesaurus employed in a specific information system has often been developed for a general subject area and needs significant enhancement to be tailored to the information system where it is to be used. This thesaurus development process, if done manually, is both time consuming and labor intensive. Usage of a thesaurus in searching is complex and may raise barriers for the user. For illustration purposes, let us consider two scenarios of thesaurus usage. In the first scenario the user inputs a search term and the thesaurus then displays a matching set of related terms. Without an overview of the thesaurus - and without the ability to see the matching terms in the context of other terms - it may be difficult to assess the quality of the related terms in order to select the correct term. In the second scenario the user browses the whole thesaurus, which is organized as in an alphabetically ordered list. The problem with this approach is that the list may be long, and neither does it show users the global semantic relationship among all the listed terms.
    Nevertheless, because thesaurus use has shown to improve retrieval, for our method we integrate functions in the search interface that permit users to explore built-in search vocabularies to improve retrieval from digital libraries. Our method automatically generates the terms and their semantic relationships representing relevant topics covered in a digital library. We call these generated terms the "concepts", and the generated terms and their semantic relationships we call the "concept space". Additionally, we used a visualization technique to display the concept space and allow users to interact with this space. The automatically generated term set is considered to be more representative of subject area in a corpus than an "externally" imposed thesaurus, and our method has the potential of saving a significant amount of time and labor for those who have been manually creating thesauri as well. Information visualization is an emerging discipline and developed very quickly in the last decade. With growing volumes of documents and associated complexities, information visualization has become increasingly important. Researchers have found information visualization to be an effective way to use and understand information while minimizing a user's cognitive load. Our work was based on an algorithmic approach of concept discovery and association. Concepts are discovered using an algorithm based on an automated thesaurus generation procedure. Subsequently, similarities among terms are computed using the cosine measure, and the associations among terms are established using a method known as max-min distance clustering. The concept space is then visualized in a spring embedding graph, which roughly shows the semantic relationships among concepts in a 2-D visual representation. The semantic space of the visualization is used as a medium for users to retrieve the desired documents. In the remainder of this article, we present our algorithmic approach of concept generation and clustering, followed by description of the visualization technique and interactive interface. The paper ends with key conclusions and discussions on future work.
    Content
    The JAVA applet is available at <http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~junzhang/dlib/IV.html>. A prototype of this interface has been developed and is available at <http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~junzhang/dlib/IV.html>. The D-Lib search interface is available at <http://www.dlib.org/Architext/AT-dlib2query.html>.
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  14. Graham, R.Y.: Subject no-hits in an academic library online catalog : an exploration of two potential ameliorations (2004) 0.04
    0.03673379 = product of:
      0.07346758 = sum of:
        0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025048172 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
        0.013388081 = weight(_text_:of in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013388081 = score(doc=178,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
        0.009363732 = product of:
          0.018727465 = sum of:
            0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.018727465 = score(doc=178,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    This paper describes a study that explored ways in which users' subject-searching problems in a local online catalog might be reduced. On a weekly basis, the author reviewed catalog transaction logs to identify topics of subject searches retrieving no records for which appropriate information resources may actually be represented in the catalog. For topics thus identified, the author explored two potential ameliorations of the no-hits search results through the use of authority record cross-references and pathfinder records providing brief instructions on search refinement. This paper describes the study findings, discusses possible concerns regarding the amelioration methods used, outlines additional steps needed to determine whether the potential ameliorations make a difference to users' searching experiences, and suggests related areas for further research.
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  15. Klas, C.-P.; Fuhr, N.; Schaefer, A.: Evaluating strategic support for information access in the DAFFODIL system (2004) 0.04
    0.035211794 = product of:
      0.07042359 = sum of:
        0.035423465 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035423465 = score(doc=2419,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2419, 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=2419)
        0.011594418 = weight(_text_:of in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011594418 = score(doc=2419,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 2419, 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=2419)
        0.006621159 = product of:
          0.013242318 = sum of:
            0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013242318 = score(doc=2419,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2419, 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=2419)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.016784549 = product of:
          0.033569098 = sum of:
            0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033569098 = score(doc=2419,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2419, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2419)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    The digital library system Daffodil is targeted at strategic support of users during the information search process. For searching, exploring and managing digital library objects it provides user-customisable information seeking patterns over a federation of heterogeneous digital libraries. In this paper evaluation results with respect to retrieval effectiveness, efficiency and user satisfaction are presented. The analysis focuses on strategic support for the scientific work-flow. Daffodil supports the whole work-flow, from data source selection over information seeking to the representation, organisation and reuse of information. By embedding high level search functionality into the scientific work-flow, the user experiences better strategic system support due to a more systematic work process. These ideas have been implemented in Daffodil followed by a qualitative evaluation. The evaluation has been conducted with 28 participants, ranging from information seeking novices to experts. The results are promising, as they support the chosen model.
    Date
    16.11.2008 16:22:48
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  16. Tudhope, D.; Alani, H.; Jones, C.: Augmenting thesaurus relationships : possibilities for retrieval (2001) 0.04
    0.035110302 = product of:
      0.09362747 = sum of:
        0.046674512 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046674512 = score(doc=1520,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.37365708 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=1520,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 1520, 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=1520)
        0.025563288 = weight(_text_:of in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025563288 = score(doc=1520,freq=42.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.39587128 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
              6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
                42.0 = termFreq=42.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    This paper discusses issues concerning the augmentation of thesaurus relationships, in light of new application possibilities for retrieval. We first discuss a case study that explored the retrieval potential of an augmented set of thesaurus relationships by specialising standard relationships into richer subtypes, in particular hierarchical geographical containment and the associative relationship. We then locate this work in a broader context by reviewing various attempts to build taxonomies of thesaurus relationships, and conclude by discussing the feasibility of hierarchically augmenting the core set of thesaurus relationships, particularly the associative relationship. We discuss the possibility of enriching the specification and semantics of Related Term (RT relationships), while maintaining compatibility with traditional thesauri via a limited hierarchical extension of the associative (and hierarchical) relationships. This would be facilitated by distinguishing the type of term from the (sub)type of relationship and explicitly specifying semantic categories for terms following a faceted approach. We first illustrate how hierarchical spatial relationships can be used to provide more flexible retrieval for queries incorporating place names in applications employing online gazetteers and geographical thesauri. We then employ a set of experimental scenarios to investigate key issues affecting use of the associative (RT) thesaurus relationships in semantic distance measures. Previous work has noted the potential of RTs in thesaurus search aids but also the problem of uncontrolled expansion of query term sets. Results presented in this paper suggest the potential for taking account of the hierarchical context of an RT link and specialisations of the RT relationship
    Source
    Journal of digital information. 1(2001) no.8
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  17. Hetzler, B.: Visual analysis and exploration of relationships (2002) 0.03
    0.033901017 = product of:
      0.090402715 = sum of:
        0.041327372 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041327372 = score(doc=1189,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 1189, 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=1189)
        0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029945528 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 1189, 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=1189)
        0.019129815 = weight(_text_:of in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019129815 = score(doc=1189,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 1189, 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=1189)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Relationships can provide a rich and powerful set of information and can be used to accomplish application goals, such as information retrieval and natural language processing. A growing trend in the information science community is the use of information visualization-taking advantage of people's natural visual capabilities to perceive and understand complex information. This chapter explores how visualization and visual exploration can help users gain insight from known relationships and discover evidence of new relationships not previously anticipated.
    Source
    The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: Green, R., C.A. Bean u. S.H. Myaeng
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  18. Ingwersen, P.; Järvelin, K.: ¬The turn : integration of information seeking and retrieval in context (2005) 0.03
    0.032398906 = product of:
      0.06479781 = sum of:
        0.034614746 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034614746 = score(doc=1323,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2771115 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
        0.015124777 = weight(_text_:use in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015124777 = score(doc=1323,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.11961284 = fieldWeight in 1323, 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=1323)
        0.011156735 = weight(_text_:of in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011156735 = score(doc=1323,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
              5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                32.0 = termFreq=32.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
        0.0039015554 = product of:
          0.007803111 = sum of:
            0.007803111 = weight(_text_:on in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007803111 = score(doc=1323,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.08591465 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    The Turn analyzes the research of information seeking and retrieval (IS&R) and proposes a new direction of integrating research in these two areas: the fields should turn off their separate and narrow paths and construct a new avenue of research. An essential direction for this avenue is context as given in the subtitle Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context. Other essential themes in the book include: IS&R research models, frameworks and theories; search and works tasks and situations in context; interaction between humans and machines; information acquisition, relevance and information use; research design and methodology based on a structured set of explicit variables - all set into the holistic cognitive approach. The present monograph invites the reader into a construction project - there is much research to do for a contextual understanding of IS&R. The Turn represents a wide-ranging perspective of IS&R by providing a novel unique research framework, covering both individual and social aspects of information behavior, including the generation, searching, retrieval and use of information. Regarding traditional laboratory information retrieval research, the monograph proposes the extension of research toward actors, search and work tasks, IR interaction and utility of information. Regarding traditional information seeking research, it proposes the extension toward information access technology and work task contexts. The Turn is the first synthesis of research in the broad area of IS&R ranging from systems oriented laboratory IR research to social science oriented information seeking studies. TOC:Introduction.- The Cognitive Framework for Information.- The Development of Information Seeking Research.- Systems-Oriented Information Retrieval.- Cognitive and User-Oriented Information Retrieval.- The Integrated IS&R Research Framework.- Implications of the Cognitive Framework for IS&R.- Towards a Research Program.- Conclusion.- Definitions.- References.- Index.
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Mitt. VÖB 59(2006) H.2, S.81-83 (O. Oberhauser): "Mit diesem Band haben zwei herausragende Vertreter der europäischen Informationswissenschaft, die Professoren Peter Ingwersen (Kopenhagen) und Kalervo Järvelin (Tampere) ein Werk vorgelegt, das man vielleicht dereinst als ihr opus magnum bezeichnen wird. Mich würde dies nicht überraschen, denn die Autoren unternehmen hier den ambitionierten Versuch, zwei informations wissenschaftliche Forschungstraditionen, die einander bisher in eher geringem Ausmass begegneten, unter einem gesamtheitlichen kognitiven Ansatz zu vereinen - das primär im sozialwissenschaftlichen Bereich verankerte Forschungsgebiet "Information Seeking and Retrieval" (IS&R) und das vorwiegend im Informatikbereich angesiedelte "Information Retrieval" (IR). Dabei geht es ihnen auch darum, den seit etlichen Jahren zwar dominierenden, aber auch als zu individualistisch kritisierten kognitiven Ansatz so zu erweitern, dass technologische, verhaltensbezogene und kooperative Aspekte in kohärenter Weise berücksichtigt werden. Dies geschieht auf folgende Weise in neun Kapiteln: - Zunächst werden die beiden "Lager" - die an Systemen und Laborexperimenten orientierte IR-Tradition und die an Benutzerfragen orientierte IS&R-Fraktion - einander gegenübergestellt und einige zentrale Begriffe geklärt. - Im zweiten Kapitel erfolgt eine ausführliche Darstellung der kognitiven Richtung der Informationswissenschaft, insbesondere hinsichtlich des Informationsbegriffes. - Daran schliesst sich ein Überblick über die bisherige Forschung zu "Information Seeking" (IS) - eine äusserst brauchbare Einführung in die Forschungsfragen und Modelle, die Forschungsmethodik sowie die in diesem Bereich offenen Fragen, z.B. die aufgrund der einseitigen Ausrichtung des Blickwinkels auf den Benutzer mangelnde Betrachtung der Benutzer-System-Interaktion. - In analoger Weise wird im vierten Kapitel die systemorientierte IRForschung in einem konzentrierten Überblick vorgestellt, in dem es sowohl um das "Labormodell" als auch Ansätze wie die Verarbeitung natürlicher Sprache und Expertensysteme geht. Aspekte wie Relevanz, Anfragemodifikation und Performanzmessung werden ebenso angesprochen wie die Methodik - von den ersten Laborexperimenten bis zu TREC und darüber hinaus.
    Series
    The Kluwer international series on information retrieval ; 18
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  19. Gao, J.; Zhang, J.: Clustered SVD strategies in latent semantic indexing (2005) 0.03
    0.031542607 = product of:
      0.08411361 = sum of:
        0.06534432 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06534432 = score(doc=1166,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.5231199 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
        0.011044604 = weight(_text_:of in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011044604 = score(doc=1166,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
        0.007724685 = product of:
          0.01544937 = sum of:
            0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01544937 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 1166, 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=1166)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    The text retrieval method using latent semantic indexing (LSI) technique with truncated singular value decomposition (SVD) has been intensively studied in recent years. The SVD reduces the noise contained in the original representation of the term-document matrix and improves the information retrieval accuracy. Recent studies indicate that SVD is mostly useful for small homogeneous data collections. For large inhomogeneous datasets, the performance of the SVD based text retrieval technique may deteriorate. We propose to partition a large inhomogeneous dataset into several smaller ones with clustered structure, on which we apply the truncated SVD. Our experimental results show that the clustered SVD strategies may enhance the retrieval accuracy and reduce the computing and storage costs.
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  20. Shiri, A.A.; Revie, C.: ¬The effects of topic complexity and familiarity on cognitive and physical moves in a thesaurus-enhanced search environment (2003) 0.03
    0.030852102 = product of:
      0.08227227 = sum of:
        0.050096344 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050096344 = score(doc=4695,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 4695, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4695)
        0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018933605 = score(doc=4695,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 4695, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4695)
        0.013242318 = product of:
          0.026484637 = sum of:
            0.026484637 = weight(_text_:on in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.026484637 = score(doc=4695,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 4695, 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=4695)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Source
    Journal of information science. 29(2003) no.6, S.517-
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

Languages

  • e 76
  • d 25

Types

  • a 93
  • el 8
  • m 6
  • s 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…