Search (37 results, page 1 of 2)

0.041593116 = product of:
  0.08318623 = sum of:
    0.058652777 = weight(_text_:headings in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058652777 = score(doc=2768,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.2652313 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
    0.024533452 = product of:
      0.049066905 = sum of:
        0.049066905 = weight(_text_:terminology in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049066905 = score(doc=2768,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.20399398 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Subject searching is the most common but also the most conflictive searching for end user. The aim of this paper is to check how users expressions match subject headings and to prove if knowledge structure used in online catalogs enhances searching effectiveness. A bibliographic revision about difficulties in subject access and proposed methods to improve it is also presented. For the empirical analysis, transaction logs from two university libraries, online catalogs (CISNE and FAMA) were collected. Results show that more than a quarter of user queries are effective due to an alphabetical subject index approach and browsing through hypertextual links. 1. Introduction Since the 1980's, online public access catalogs (OPAC's) have become usual way to access bibliographic information. During the last two decades the technological development has helped to extend their use, making feasible the access for a whole of users that is getting more and more extensive and heterogeneous, and also to incorporate information resources in electronic formats and to interconnect systems. However, technology seems to have developed faster than our knowledge about the tasks where it has been applied and than the evolution of our capacities for adapting to it. The conceptual model of OPAC has been hardly modified recently, and for interacting with them, users still need to combine the same skills and basic knowledge than at the beginning of its introduction (Borgman, 1986, 2000): a) conceptual knowledge to translate the information need into an appropriate query because of a well-designed mental model of the system, b) semantic and syntactic knowledge to be able to implement that query (access fields, searching type, Boolean logic, etc.) and c) basic technical skills in computing. At present many users have the essential technical skills to make use, with more or less expertise, of a computer. This number is substantially reduced when it is referred to the conceptual, semantic and syntactic knowledge that is necessary to achieve a moderately satisfactory search. An added difficulty arises in subject searching, as users should concrete their unknown information needs in terms that the information retrieval system can understand. Many researches have focused an unskilled searchers' difficulties to enter an effective query. The mental models influence, users assumption about characteristics, structure, contents and operation of the system they interact with have been analysed (Dillon, 2000; Dimitroff, 2000). Another issue that implies difficulties is vocabulary: how to find the right terms to implement a query and to modify it as the case may be. Terminology and expressions characteristics used in searching (Bates, 1993), the match between user terms and the subject headings from the catalog (Carlyle, 1989; Drabensttot, 1996; Drabensttot & Vizine-Goetz, 1994), the incidence of spelling errors (Drabensttot and Weller, 1996; Ferl and Millsap, 1996; Walker and Jones, 1987), users problems

0.020947421 = product of:
  0.083789684 = sum of:
    0.083789684 = weight(_text_:headings in 3179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083789684 = score(doc=3179,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.3789019 = fieldWeight in 3179, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3179)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

There are many advantages for Digital Libraries in indexing with classifications or thesauri, but some current disincentive in the lack of flexible retrieval tools that deal with compound descriptors. This paper discusses a matching function for compound descriptors, or multi-concept subject headings, that does not rely an exact matching but incorporates term expansion via thesaurus semantic relationships to produce ranked results that take account of missing and partially matching terms. The matching function is based an a measure of semantic closeness between terms, which has the potential to help with recall problems. The work reported is part of the ongoing FACET project in collaboration with the National Museum of Science and Industry and its collections database. The architecture of the prototype system and its Interface are outlined. The matching problem for compound descriptors is reviewed and the FACET implementation described. Results are discussed from scenarios using the faceted Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus. We argue that automatic traversal of thesaurus relationships can augment the user's browsing possibilities. The techniques can be applied both to unstructured multi-concept subject headings and potentially to more syntactically structured strings. The notion of a focus term is used by the matching function to model AAT modified descriptors (noun phrases). The relevance of the approach to precoordinated indexing and matching faceted strings is discussed.

0.018211365 = product of:
  0.07284546 = sum of:
    0.07284546 = product of:
      0.14569092 = sum of:
        0.14569092 = weight(_text_:terminology in 5750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14569092 = score(doc=5750,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.605705 = fieldWeight in 5750, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5750)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

While researchers have explored the value of structured thesauri as controlled vocabularies for general information retrieval (IR) activities, they have not identified the optimal query expansion (QE) processing methods for taking advantage of the semantic encoding underlying the terminology in these tools. The study reported on in this article addresses this question, and examined whether QE via semantically encoded thesauri terminology is more effective in the automatic or interactive processing environment. The research found that, regardless of end-users' retrieval goals, synonyms and partial synonyms (SYNs) and narrower terms (NTs) are generally good candidates for automatic QE and that related (RTs) are better candidates for interactive QE. The study also examined end-users' selection of semantically encoded thesauri terms for interactive QE, and explored how retrieval goals and QE processes may be combined in future thesauri-supported IR systems

0.012391265 = product of:
  0.04956506 = sum of:
    0.04956506 = product of:
      0.09913012 = sum of:
        0.09913012 = weight(_text_:terminology in 1083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09913012 = score(doc=1083,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.41213006 = fieldWeight in 1083, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1083)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Researchers in indexing and retrieval systems have been advocating the inclusion of more contextual information to improve results. The proliferation of full-text databases and advances in computer storage capacity have made it possible to carry out text analysis by means of linguistic and extra-linguistic knowledge. Since the mid 80s, research has tended to pay more attention to context, giving discourse analysis a more central role. The research presented in this paper aims to check whether discourse variables have an impact on modern information retrieval and classification algorithms. In order to evaluate this hypothesis, a functional framework for information analysis in an automated environment has been proposed, where the n-grams (filtering) and the k-means and Chen's classification algorithms have been tested against sub-collections of documents based on the following discourse variables: "Genre", "Register", "Domain terminology", and "Document structure". The results obtained with the algorithms for the different sub-collections were compared to the MeSH information structure. These demonstrate that n-grams does not appear to have a clear dependence on discourse variables, though the k-means classification algorithm does, but only on domain terminology and document structure, and finally Chen's algorithm has a clear dependence on all of the discourse variables. This information could be used to design better classification algorithms, where discourse variables should be taken into account. Other minor conclusions drawn from these results are also presented.

0.01184965 = product of:
  0.0473986 = sum of:
    0.0473986 = weight(_text_:headings in 175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0473986 = score(doc=175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.21433927 = fieldWeight in 175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=175)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

There are many advantages for Digital Libraries in indexing with classifications or thesauri, but some current disincentive in the lack of flexible retrieval tools that deal with compound descriptors. This demonstration of a research prototype illustrates a matching function for compound descriptors, or multi-concept subject headings, that does not rely on exact matching but incorporates term expansion via thesaurus semantic relationships to produce ranked results that take account of missing and partially matching terms. The matching function is based on a measure of semantic closeness between terms.The work is part of the EPSRC funded FACET project in collaboration with the UK National Museum of Science and Industry (NMSI) which includes the National Railway Museum. An export of NMSI's Collections Database is used as the dataset for the research. The J. Paul Getty Trust's Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) is the main thesaurus in the project. The AAT is a widely used thesaurus (over 120,000 terms). Descriptors are organised in 7 facets representing separate conceptual classes of terms.The FACET application is a multi tiered architecture accessing a SQL Server database, with an OLE DB connection. The thesauri are stored as relational tables in the Server's database. However, a key component of the system is a parallel representation of the underlying semantic network as an in-memory structure of thesaurus concepts (corresponding to preferred terms). The structure models the hierarchical and associative interrelationships of thesaurus concepts via weighted poly-hierarchical links. Its primary purpose is real-time semantic expansion of query terms, achieved by a spreading activation semantic closeness algorithm. Queries with associated results are stored persistently using XML format data. A Visual Basic interface combines a thesaurus browser and an initial term search facility that takes into account equivalence relationships. Terms are dragged to a direct manipulation Query Builder which maintains the facet structure.

0.010920615 = product of:
  0.04368246 = sum of:
    0.04368246 = product of:
      0.08736492 = sum of:
        0.08736492 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08736492 = score(doc=1352,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 2.2003 17:25:39
22. 2.2003 18:17:40

0.010810858 = product of:
  0.04324343 = sum of:
    0.04324343 = product of:
      0.08648686 = sum of:
        0.08648686 = weight(_text_:22 in 2134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08648686 = score(doc=2134,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2134, 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=2134)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

30. 3.2001 13:32:22

0.010514337 = product of:
  0.042057347 = sum of:
    0.042057347 = product of:
      0.08411469 = sum of:
        0.08411469 = weight(_text_:terminology in 2259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08411469 = score(doc=2259,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.34970397 = fieldWeight in 2259, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2259)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An ontology is "an explicit conceptualization of a domain of discourse, and thus provides a shared and common understanding of the domain." We have been producing ontologies for millennia to understand and explain our rationale and environment. From Plato's philosophical framework to modern day classification systems, ontologies are, in most cases, the product of extensive analysis and categorization. Only recently has the process of building ontologies become a research topic of interest. Today, ontologies are built very much ad-hoc. A terminology is first developed providing a controlled vocabulary for the subject area or domain of interest, then it is organized into a taxonomy where key concepts are identified, and finally these concepts are defined and related to create an ontology. The intent of this paper is to show that domain analysis methods can be used for building ontologies. Domain analysis aims at generic models that represent groups of similar systems within an application domain. In this sense, it deals with categorization of common objects and operations, with clear, unambiguous definitions of them and with defining their relationships.

0.008761947 = product of:
  0.03504779 = sum of:
    0.03504779 = product of:
      0.07009558 = sum of:
        0.07009558 = weight(_text_:terminology in 5703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07009558 = score(doc=5703,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.29141995 = fieldWeight in 5703, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5703)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Structured thesauri encode equivalent, hierarchical, and associative relationships and have been developed as indexing/retrieval tools. Despite the fact that these tools provide a rich semantic network of vocabulary terms, they are seldom employed for automatic query expansion (QE) activities. This article reports on an experiment that examined whether thesaurus terms, related to query in a specified semantic way (as synonyms and partial-synonyms (SYNs), narrower terms (NTs), related terms (RTs), and broader terms (BTs)), could be identified as having a more positive impact on retrieval effectiveness when added to a query through automatic QE. The research found that automatic QE via SYNs and NTs increased relative recall with a decline in precision that was not statistically significant, and that automatic QE via RTs and BTs increased relative recall with a decline in precision that was statistically significant. Recallbased and a precision-based ranking orders for automatic QE via semantically encoded thesauri terminology were identified. Mapping results found between enduser query terms and the ProQuest Controlled Vocabulary (1997) (the thesaurus used in this study) are reported, and future research foci related to the investigation are discussed

0.008761947 = product of:
  0.03504779 = sum of:
    0.03504779 = product of:
      0.07009558 = sum of:
        0.07009558 = weight(_text_:terminology in 2215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07009558 = score(doc=2215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.29141995 = fieldWeight in 2215, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore query expansion via conceptual distance in thesaurus indexed collections Design/methodology/approach - An extract of the National Museum of Science and Industry's collections database, indexed with the Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT), was the dataset for the research. The system architecture and algorithms for semantic closeness and the matching function are outlined. Standalone and web interfaces are described and formative qualitative user studies are discussed. One user session is discussed in detail, together with a scenario based on a related public inquiry. Findings are set in context of the literature on thesaurus-based query expansion. This paper discusses the potential of query expansion techniques using the semantic relationships in a faceted thesaurus. Findings - Thesaurus-assisted retrieval systems have potential for multi-concept descriptors, permitting very precise queries and indexing. However, indexer and searcher may differ in terminology judgments and there may not be any exactly matching results. The integration of semantic closeness in the matching function permits ranked results for multi-concept queries in thesaurus-indexed applications. An in-memory representation of the thesaurus semantic network allows a combination of automatic and interactive control of expansion and control of expansion on individual query terms. Originality/value - The application of semantic expansion to browsing may be useful in interface options where thesaurus structure is hidden.

0.007722041 = product of:
  0.030888164 = sum of:
    0.030888164 = product of:
      0.06177633 = sum of:
        0.06177633 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06177633 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2751, 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=2751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

0.007722041 = product of:
  0.030888164 = sum of:
    0.030888164 = product of:
      0.06177633 = sum of:
        0.06177633 = weight(_text_:22 in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06177633 = score(doc=2754,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2754, 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=2754)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

0.007722041 = product of:
  0.030888164 = sum of:
    0.030888164 = product of:
      0.06177633 = sum of:
        0.06177633 = weight(_text_:22 in 3279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06177633 = score(doc=3279,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3279, 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=3279)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.007722041 = product of:
  0.030888164 = sum of:
    0.030888164 = product of:
      0.06177633 = sum of:
        0.06177633 = weight(_text_:22 in 3280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06177633 = score(doc=3280,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3280, 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=3280)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.0076444307 = product of:
  0.030577723 = sum of:
    0.030577723 = product of:
      0.061155446 = sum of:
        0.061155446 = weight(_text_:22 in 5295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061155446 = score(doc=5295,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 7.2006 17:56:22

0.007009558 = product of:
  0.028038232 = sum of:
    0.028038232 = product of:
      0.056076463 = sum of:
        0.056076463 = weight(_text_:terminology in 360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056076463 = score(doc=360,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.23313597 = fieldWeight in 360, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Today's complex, information-intensive problems often require people to work together. Mostly these tasks go far beyond simply searching together; they include information lookup, sharing, synthesis, and decision-making. In addition, they all have an end-goal that is mutually beneficial to all parties involved. Such "collaborative information seeking" (CIS) projects typically last several sessions and the participants all share an intention to contribute and benefit. Not surprisingly, these processes are highly interactive. Shah focuses on two individually well-understood notions: collaboration and information seeking, with the goal of bringing them together to show how it is a natural tendency for humans to work together on complex tasks. The first part of his book introduces the general notions of collaboration and information seeking, as well as related concepts, terminology, and frameworks; and thus provides the reader with a comprehensive treatment of the concepts underlying CIS. The second part of the book details CIS as a standalone domain. A series of frameworks, theories, and models are introduced to provide a conceptual basis for CIS. The final part describes several systems and applications of CIS, along with their broader implications on other fields such as computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) and human-computer interaction (HCI). With this first comprehensive overview of an exciting new research field, Shah delivers to graduate students and researchers in academia and industry an encompassing description of the technologies involved, state-of-the-art results, and open challenges as well as research opportunities.

0.0061776326 = product of:
  0.02471053 = sum of:
    0.02471053 = product of:
      0.04942106 = sum of:
        0.04942106 = weight(_text_:22 in 5693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04942106 = score(doc=5693,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5693, 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=5693)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

30. 3.2001 13:35:22

0.006133363 = product of:
  0.024533452 = sum of:
    0.024533452 = product of:
      0.049066905 = sum of:
        0.049066905 = weight(_text_:terminology in 1164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049066905 = score(doc=1164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.20399398 = fieldWeight in 1164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

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.

0.005405429 = product of:
  0.021621715 = sum of:
    0.021621715 = product of:
      0.04324343 = sum of:
        0.04324343 = weight(_text_:22 in 6958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04324343 = score(doc=6958,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6958, 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=6958)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.005405429 = product of:
  0.021621715 = sum of:
    0.021621715 = product of:
      0.04324343 = sum of:
        0.04324343 = weight(_text_:22 in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04324343 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1319, 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=1319)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06