Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.045676924 = product of:
  0.09135385 = sum of:
    0.09135385 = sum of:
      0.04885695 = weight(_text_:research in 2575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04885695 = score(doc=2575,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.3275791 = fieldWeight in 2575, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2575)
      0.042496894 = weight(_text_:22 in 2575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042496894 = score(doc=2575,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2575, 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=2575)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An important aspect of information retrieval systems is domain independence, where the subject of the information is not restricted to certain domains of knowledge. This should be able to represent any topic and although the text representation does not involve any semantic knowledge, lexical and syntactic analysis of the text allows the representation to remain domain independent. Reports research at Dublin City University, Ireland, which concentrates on the lexical and syntactic levels of natural language analysis and describes a domain independent automatic information retrieval system which accesses a very large database of newspaper text from the Wall Street Journal. The system represents the text in the form of syntax trees, and these trees are used in the matching process. Reports early results from the stuyd

Source

Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon

0.028331263 = product of:
  0.056662526 = sum of:
    0.056662526 = product of:
      0.11332505 = sum of:
        0.11332505 = weight(_text_:22 in 3829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11332505 = score(doc=3829,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3829, 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=3829)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

6. 1.1999 10:29:22

0.024789855 = product of:
  0.04957971 = sum of:
    0.04957971 = product of:
      0.09915942 = sum of:
        0.09915942 = weight(_text_:22 in 29) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09915942 = score(doc=29,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 29, 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=29)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

6. 1.1999 10:22:45

0.012394927 = product of:
  0.024789855 = sum of:
    0.024789855 = product of:
      0.04957971 = sum of:
        0.04957971 = weight(_text_:22 in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04957971 = score(doc=2574,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2574, 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=2574)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2000 19:17:40

0.012394927 = product of:
  0.024789855 = sum of:
    0.024789855 = product of:
      0.04957971 = sum of:
        0.04957971 = weight(_text_:22 in 220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04957971 = score(doc=220,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 220, 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=220)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.2007 12:21:29

0.011753156 = product of:
  0.023506312 = sum of:
    0.023506312 = product of:
      0.047012623 = sum of:
        0.047012623 = weight(_text_:research in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047012623 = score(doc=1003,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.31521314 = fieldWeight in 1003, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1003)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In recent years, linguistics has developed a way of looking at language which may offer some insights to the indexer. Three main stages of inquiry are identified: observational, intuitional and evaluative. It is suggested that evaluative discussion of indexes is dependent on prior research at the observational and intuitional stages

0.01163503 = product of:
  0.02327006 = sum of:
    0.02327006 = product of:
      0.04654012 = sum of:
        0.04654012 = weight(_text_:research in 6147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04654012 = score(doc=6147,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.31204507 = fieldWeight in 6147, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6147)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Content analysis, restricted within the limits of written textual documents (WTDCA), is a field which is greatly in need of extensive interdisciplinary research. This would clarify certain concepts, especially those concerned with 'text', as a new central nucleus of semiotic research, and 'content', or the informative power of text. The objective reality (syntax) of the written document should be, in the cognitve process that all content analysis entails, interpreted (semantically and pragmatically) in an intersubjective manner with regard to the context, the analyst's knowledge base and the documentary objectives. The contributions of sociolinguistics (textual), logic (formal) and psychology (cognitive) are fundamental to the conduct of these activities. The criteria used to validate the results obtained complete the necessary conceptual reference panorama

0.007051893 = product of:
  0.014103786 = sum of:
    0.014103786 = product of:
      0.028207572 = sum of:
        0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028207572 = score(doc=691,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 691, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=691)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Computer scientists create models of a perceived reality. Through AI techniques, these models aim at providing the basic support for emulating cognitive behavior such as reasoning and learning, which is one of the main goals of the Al research effort. Such computer models are formed through the interaction of various acquisition and inference mechanisms: perception, concept learning, conceptual clustering, hypothesis testing, probabilistic inference, etc., and are represented using different paradigms tightly linked to the processes that use them. Among these paradigms let us cite: biological models (neural nets, genetic programming), logic-based models (first-order logic, modal logic, rule-based systems), virtual reality models (object systems, agent systems), probabilistic models (Bayesian nets, fuzzy logic), linguistic models (conceptual dependency graphs, language-based rep resentations), etc. One of the strengths of the Conceptual Graph (CG) theory is its versatility in terms of the representation paradigms under which it falls. It can be viewed and therefore used, under different representation paradigms, which makes it a popular choice for a wealth of applications. Its full coupling with different cognitive processes lead to the opening of the field toward related research communities such as the Description Logic, Formal Concept Analysis, and Computational Linguistic communities. We now see more and more research results from one community enrich the other, laying the foundations of common philosophical grounds from which a successful synergy can emerge. ICCS 2000 embodies this spirit of research collaboration. It presents a set of papers that we believe, by their exposure, will benefit the whole community. For instance, the technical program proposes tracks on Conceptual Ontologies, Language, Formal Concept Analysis, Computational Aspects of Conceptual Structures, and Formal Semantics, with some papers on pragmatism and human related aspects of computing. Never before was the program of ICCS formed by so heterogeneously rooted theories of knowledge representation and use. We hope that this swirl of ideas will benefit you as much as it already has benefited us while putting together this program

0.005817515 = product of:
  0.01163503 = sum of:
    0.01163503 = product of:
      0.02327006 = sum of:
        0.02327006 = weight(_text_:research in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02327006 = score(doc=5089,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.15602253 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures - Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues (ICCS 2000) brings together a wide range of researchers and practitioners working with conceptual structures. During the last few years, the ICCS conference series has considerably widened its scope on different kinds of conceptual structures, stimulating research across domain boundaries. We hope that this stimulation is further enhanced by ICCS 2000 joining the long tradition of conferences in Darmstadt with extensive, lively discussions. This volume consists of contributions presented at ICCS 2000, complementing the volume "Conceptual Structures: Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues" (B. Ganter, G.W. Mineau (Eds.), LNAI 1867, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg 2000). It contains submissions reviewed by the program committee, and position papers. We wish to express our appreciation to all the authors of submitted papers, to the general chair, the program chair, the editorial board, the program committee, and to the additional reviewers for making ICCS 2000 a valuable contribution in the knowledge processing research field. Special thanks go to the local organizers for making the conference an enjoyable and inspiring event. We are grateful to Darmstadt University of Technology, the Ernst Schröder Center for Conceptual Knowledge Processing, the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Technology, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Land Hessen, and NaviCon GmbH for their generous support