Search (40 results, page 1 of 2)

0.037310876 = product of:
  0.18655437 = sum of:
    0.18655437 = weight(_text_:computers in 1307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18655437 = score(doc=1307,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22709264 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04319373 = queryNorm
        0.82149017 = fieldWeight in 1307, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1307)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

COMPASS

Information retrieval / Use of / On-line computers

Subject

Information retrieval / Use of / On-line computers

0.014458722 = product of:
  0.07229361 = sum of:
    0.07229361 = product of:
      0.14458722 = sum of:
        0.14458722 = weight(_text_:history in 1302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14458722 = score(doc=1302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20093648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.7195668 = fieldWeight in 1302, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.013058806 = product of:
  0.06529403 = sum of:
    0.06529403 = weight(_text_:computers in 3645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06529403 = score(doc=3645,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22709264 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04319373 = queryNorm
        0.28752154 = fieldWeight in 3645, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3645)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The selection that follows was chosen as it represents "a very early paper an the possibilities allowed by computers an documentation." In the early 1960s computers were being used to provide simple automatic indexing systems wherein keywords were extracted from documents. The problem with such systems was that they lacked vocabulary control, thus documents related in subject matter were not always collocated in retrieval. To improve retrieval by improving recall is the raison d'être of vocabulary control tools such as classifications and thesauri. The question arose whether it was possible by automatic means to construct classes of terms, which when substituted, one for another, could be used to improve retrieval performance? One of the first theoretical approaches to this question was initiated by R. M. Needham and Karen Sparck Jones at the Cambridge Language Research Institute in England.t The question was later pursued using experimental methodologies by Sparck Jones, who, as a Senior Research Associate in the Computer Laboratory at the University of Cambridge, has devoted her life's work to research in information retrieval and automatic naturai language processing. Based an the principles of numerical taxonomy, automatic classification techniques start from the premise that two objects are similar to the degree that they share attributes in common. When these two objects are keywords, their similarity is measured in terms of the number of documents they index in common. Step 1 in automatic classification is to compute mathematically the degree to which two terms are similar. Step 2 is to group together those terms that are "most similar" to each other, forming equivalence classes of intersubstitutable terms. The technique for forming such classes varies and is the factor that characteristically distinguishes different approaches to automatic classification. The technique used by Needham and Sparck Jones, that of clumping, is described in the selection that follows. Questions that must be asked are whether the use of automatically generated classes really does improve retrieval performance and whether there is a true eco nomic advantage in substituting mechanical for manual labor. Several years after her work with clumping, Sparck Jones was to observe that while it was not wholly satisfactory in itself, it was valuable in that it stimulated research into automatic classification. To this it might be added that it was valuable in that it introduced to libraryl information science the methods of numerical taxonomy, thus stimulating us to think again about the fundamental nature and purpose of classification. In this connection it might be useful to review how automatically derived classes differ from those of manually constructed classifications: 1) the manner of their derivation is purely a posteriori, the ultimate operationalization of the principle of literary warrant; 2) the relationship between members forming such classes is essentially statistical; the members of a given class are similar to each other not because they possess the class-defining characteristic but by virtue of sharing a family resemblance; and finally, 3) automatically derived classes are not related meaningfully one to another, that is, they are not ordered in traditional hierarchical and precedence relationships.

0.009363446 = product of:
  0.046817232 = sum of:
    0.046817232 = product of:
      0.093634464 = sum of:
        0.093634464 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.093634464 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15125708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986) no.6, S.465-476

0.009233969 = product of:
  0.046169847 = sum of:
    0.046169847 = weight(_text_:computers in 1874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046169847 = score(doc=1874,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22709264 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04319373 = queryNorm
        0.20330843 = fieldWeight in 1874, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1874)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

"People can summarize a complex scene in a few words without thinking twice. It's much more difficult for computers. But we've just gotten a bit closer -- we've developed a machine-learning system that can automatically produce captions (like the three above) to accurately describe images the first time it sees them. This kind of system could eventually help visually impaired people understand pictures, provide alternate text for images in parts of the world where mobile connections are slow, and make it easier for everyone to search on Google for images. Recent research has greatly improved object detection, classification, and labeling. But accurately describing a complex scene requires a deeper representation of what's going on in the scene, capturing how the various objects relate to one another and translating it all into natural-sounding language. Many efforts to construct computer-generated natural descriptions of images propose combining current state-of-the-art techniques in both computer vision and natural language processing to form a complete image description approach. But what if we instead merged recent computer vision and language models into a single jointly trained system, taking an image and directly producing a human readable sequence of words to describe it? This idea comes from recent advances in machine translation between languages, where a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) transforms, say, a French sentence into a vector representation, and a second RNN uses that vector representation to generate a target sentence in German. Now, what if we replaced that first RNN and its input words with a deep Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) trained to classify objects in images? Normally, the CNN's last layer is used in a final Softmax among known classes of objects, assigning a probability that each object might be in the image. But if we remove that final layer, we can instead feed the CNN's rich encoding of the image into a RNN designed to produce phrases. We can then train the whole system directly on images and their captions, so it maximizes the likelihood that descriptions it produces best match the training descriptions for each image.

0.008262127 = product of:
  0.041310634 = sum of:
    0.041310634 = product of:
      0.08262127 = sum of:
        0.08262127 = weight(_text_:history in 3958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08262127 = score(doc=3958,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20093648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 3958, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3958)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Reviews the history of indexing, which began with the rise of the universities in the 13th century, before the invention of printing. Describes the different skills needed for indexing books, periodicals and databases. States the belief that the quest for fully automatic indexing is a futile endeavour; machine-generated indexes need the services of human post-editors if they are to be useful and acceptable

0.008262127 = product of:
  0.041310634 = sum of:
    0.041310634 = product of:
      0.08262127 = sum of:
        0.08262127 = weight(_text_:history in 5099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08262127 = score(doc=5099,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20093648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 5099, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5099)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Explores the potential of text analysis as a tool in full text search and design improvement. Reports on a trial analysis performed in the domain of family history. The findings offered insights into possible gains and losses in using one search or design strategy versus another and strong evidence was provided to the potential of text analysis. Makes search and design recommendation

0.008193015 = product of:
  0.040965077 = sum of:
    0.040965077 = product of:
      0.08193015 = sum of:
        0.08193015 = weight(_text_:22 in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08193015 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15125708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20.10.2000 12:22:23

0.008193015 = product of:
  0.040965077 = sum of:
    0.040965077 = product of:
      0.08193015 = sum of:
        0.08193015 = weight(_text_:22 in 6265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08193015 = score(doc=6265,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15125708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6265, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information outlook. 9(2005) no.8, S.22-23

0.0070225853 = product of:
  0.035112925 = sum of:
    0.035112925 = product of:
      0.07022585 = sum of:
        0.07022585 = weight(_text_:22 in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07022585 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15125708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

14. 6.2015 22:12:44

0.0070225853 = product of:
  0.035112925 = sum of:
    0.035112925 = product of:
      0.07022585 = sum of:
        0.07022585 = weight(_text_:22 in 5887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07022585 = score(doc=5887,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15125708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5887, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5887)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Wissen in Aktion: Wege des Knowledge Managements. 22. Online-Tagung der DGI, Frankfurt am Main, 2.-4.5.2000. Proceedings. Hrsg.: R. Schmidt

0.0070225853 = product of:
  0.035112925 = sum of:
    0.035112925 = product of:
      0.07022585 = sum of:
        0.07022585 = weight(_text_:22 in 2051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07022585 = score(doc=2051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15125708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2051, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

14. 6.2015 22:12:56

0.0070225853 = product of:
  0.035112925 = sum of:
    0.035112925 = product of:
      0.07022585 = sum of:
        0.07022585 = weight(_text_:22 in 5629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07022585 = score(doc=5629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15125708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5629, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5629)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.2, S.163-166

0.006595693 = product of:
  0.032978464 = sum of:
    0.032978464 = weight(_text_:computers in 1875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032978464 = score(doc=1875,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22709264 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04319373 = queryNorm
        0.14522031 = fieldWeight in 1875, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1875)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

In living organisms, webs of neurons in the brain vastly outperform even the best computer-based networks in perception and pattern recognition. But by adopting some of the same architecture, computers are catching up, learning to identify patterns in speech and imagery with increasing accuracy. The advances are apparent to consumers who use Apple's Siri personal assistant, for example, or Google's image search. Both groups of researchers employed similar approaches, weaving together two types of neural networks, one focused on recognizing images and the other on human language. In both cases the researchers trained the software with relatively small sets of digital images that had been annotated with descriptive sentences by humans. After the software programs "learned" to see patterns in the pictures and description, the researchers turned them on previously unseen images. The programs were able to identify objects and actions with roughly double the accuracy of earlier efforts, although still nowhere near human perception capabilities. "I was amazed that even with the small amount of training data that we were able to do so well," said Oriol Vinyals, a Google computer scientist who wrote the paper with Alexander Toshev, Samy Bengio and Dumitru Erhan, members of the Google Brain project. "The field is just starting, and we will see a lot of increases."

0.0058521545 = product of:
  0.029260771 = sum of:
    0.029260771 = product of:
      0.058521543 = sum of:
        0.058521543 = weight(_text_:22 in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058521543 = score(doc=1952,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15125708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1952, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

16. 8.1998 12:51:22

0.0058521545 = product of:
  0.029260771 = sum of:
    0.029260771 = product of:
      0.058521543 = sum of:
        0.058521543 = weight(_text_:22 in 4157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058521543 = score(doc=4157,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15125708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4157, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4157)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information und Märkte: 50. Deutscher Dokumentartag 1998, Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Dokumentation e.V. (DGD), Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, 22.-24. September 1998. Hrsg. von Marlies Ockenfeld u. Gerhard J. Mantwill

0.0058521545 = product of:
  0.029260771 = sum of:
    0.029260771 = product of:
      0.058521543 = sum of:
        0.058521543 = weight(_text_:22 in 374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058521543 = score(doc=374,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15125708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 374, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=374)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

1. 4.2002 10:22:41

0.0058521545 = product of:
  0.029260771 = sum of:
    0.029260771 = product of:
      0.058521543 = sum of:
        0.058521543 = weight(_text_:22 in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058521543 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15125708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

0.004681723 = product of:
  0.023408616 = sum of:
    0.023408616 = product of:
      0.046817232 = sum of:
        0.046817232 = weight(_text_:22 in 4709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046817232 = score(doc=4709,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15125708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4709, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4709)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

31. 7.1996 9:22:19

0.004681723 = product of:
  0.023408616 = sum of:
    0.023408616 = product of:
      0.046817232 = sum of:
        0.046817232 = weight(_text_:22 in 6752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046817232 = score(doc=6752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15125708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

6. 3.1997 16:22:15