-
Evens, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval (2002)
0.00
0.0039907596 = product of:
0.015963038 = sum of:
0.015963038 = weight(_text_:information in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015963038 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.034944877 = queryNorm
0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Thesaural relations have long been used in information retrieval to enrich queries; they have sometimes been used to cluster documents as well. Sometimes the first query to an information retrieval system yields no results at all, or, what can be even more disconcerting, many thousands of hits. One solution is to rephrase the query, improving the choice of query terms by using related terms of different types. A collection of related terms is often called a thesaurus. This chapter describes the lexical-semantic relations that have been used in building thesauri and summarizes some of the effects of using these relational thesauri in information retrieval experiments
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
-
Nie, J.-Y.: Query expansion and query translation as logical inference (2003)
0.00
0.003091229 = product of:
0.012364916 = sum of:
0.012364916 = weight(_text_:information in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012364916 = score(doc=1425,freq=6.0), product of:
0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.034944877 = queryNorm
0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- A number of studies have examined the problems of query expansion in monolingual Information Retrieval (IR), and query translation for crosslanguage IR. However, no link has been made between them. This article first shows that query translation is a special case of query expansion. There is also another set of studies an inferential IR. Again, there is no relationship established with query translation or query expansion. The second claim of this article is that logical inference is a general form that covers query expansion and query translation. This analysis provides a unified view of different subareas of IR. We further develop the inferential IR approach in two particular contexts: using fuzzy logic and probability theory. The evaluation formulas obtained are shown to strongly correspond to those used in other IR models. This indicates that inference is indeed the core of advanced IR.
- Footnote
- Beitrag eines Themenheftes: Mathematical, logical, and formal methods in information retrieval
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.4, S.335-346
-
Drexel, G.: Knowledge engineering for intelligent information retrieval (2001)
0.00
0.0025239778 = product of:
0.010095911 = sum of:
0.010095911 = weight(_text_:information in 4043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010095911 = score(doc=4043,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.034944877 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4043, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4043)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- This paper presents a clustered approach to designing an overall ontological model together with a general rule-based component that serves as a mapping device. By observational criteria, a multi-lingual team of experts excerpts concepts from general communication in the media. The team, then, finds equivalent expressions in English, German, French, and Spanish. On the basis of a set of ontological and lexical relations, a conceptual network is built up. Concepts are thought to be universal. Objects unique in time and space are identified by names and will be explained by the universals as their instances. Our approach relies on multi-relational descriptions of concepts. It provides a powerful tool for documentation and conceptual language learning. First and foremost, our multi-lingual, polyhierarchical ontology fills the gap of semantically-based information retrieval by generating enhanced and improved queries for internet search
-
Oard, D.W.: Alternative approaches for cross-language text retrieval (1997)
0.00
0.002327943 = product of:
0.009311772 = sum of:
0.009311772 = weight(_text_:information in 1164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009311772 = score(doc=1164,freq=10.0), product of:
0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.034944877 = queryNorm
0.1517936 = fieldWeight in 1164, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1164)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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.
