Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Sprachretrieval"
  1. Young, C.W.; Eastman, C.M.; Oakman, R.L.: ¬An analysis of ill-formed input in natural language queries to document retrieval systems (1991) 0.00
    0.0041203364 = product of:
      0.02060168 = sum of:
        0.02060168 = product of:
          0.04120336 = sum of:
            0.04120336 = weight(_text_:problems in 5263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04120336 = score(doc=5263,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.036484417 = queryNorm
                0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 5263, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5263)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Natrual language document retrieval queries from the Thomas Cooper Library, South Carolina Univ. were analysed in oder to investigate the frequency of various types of ill-formed input, such as spelling errors, cooccurrence violations, conjunctions, ellipsis, and missing or incorrect punctuation. Users were requested to write out their requests for information in complete sentences on the form normally used by the library. The primary reason for analysing ill-formed inputs was to determine whether there is a significant need to study ill-formed inputs in detail. Results indicated that most of the queries were sentence fragments and that many of them contained some type of ill-formed input. Conjunctions caused the most problems. The next most serious problem was caused by punctuation errors. Spelling errors occured in a small number of queries. The remaining types of ill-formed input considered, allipsis and cooccurrence violations, were not found in the queries
  2. Srihari, R.K.: Using speech input for image interpretation, annotation, and retrieval (1997) 0.00
    0.002965881 = product of:
      0.014829405 = sum of:
        0.014829405 = product of:
          0.02965881 = sum of:
            0.02965881 = weight(_text_:22 in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02965881 = score(doc=764,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.036484417 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 764, 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=764)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05