Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.028647777 = product of:
  0.08594333 = sum of:
    0.06488107 = weight(_text_:computer in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06488107 = score(doc=5001,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.39971197 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
    0.021062255 = product of:
      0.04212451 = sum of:
        0.04212451 = weight(_text_:22 in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04212451 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5001, 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=5001)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

A study was done to test the effectiveness of retrieval using title word searching. It was based on actual search profiles used in the Mechanized Information Center at Ohio State University, in order ro replicate as closely as possible actual searching conditions. Fewer than 50% of the relevant titles were retrieved by keywords in titles. The low rate of retrieval can be attributes to three sources: titles themselves, user and information specialist ignorance of the subject vocabulary in use, and to general language problems. Across fields it was found that the social sciences had the best retrieval rate, with science having the next best, and arts and humanities the lowest. Ways to enhance and supplement keyword in title searching on the computer and in printed indexes are discussed.

Date

14. 3.1996 13:22:21

0.017477274 = product of:
  0.10486364 = sum of:
    0.10486364 = weight(_text_:computer in 2332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10486364 = score(doc=2332,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.6460321 = fieldWeight in 2332, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2332)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Series

Lecture notes in computer science; vol.146

0.015447874 = product of:
  0.09268724 = sum of:
    0.09268724 = weight(_text_:computer in 1307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09268724 = score(doc=1307,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.5710171 = fieldWeight in 1307, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1307)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Series

Addison-Wesley series in computer science

0.0112395715 = product of:
  0.067437425 = sum of:
    0.067437425 = weight(_text_:wide in 3516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067437425 = score(doc=3516,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 3516, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3516)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Report of a study comparing 2 methods of indexing: LEXINET, a computerised system for indexing titles and summaries only; and manual indexing of full texts, using the thesaurus developed by French Electricity (EDF). Both systems were applied to a collection of approximately 2.000 documents on artifical intelligence from the EDF data base. The results were then analysed to compare quantitative performance (number and range of terms) and qualitative performance (ambiguity of terms, specificity, variability, consistency). Overall, neither system proved ideal: LEXINET was deficient as regards lack of accessibility and excessive ambiguity; while the manual system gave rise to an over-wide variation of terms. The ideal system would appear to be a combination of automatic and manual systems, on the evidence produced here.

0.008738637 = product of:
  0.05243182 = sum of:
    0.05243182 = weight(_text_:computer in 2323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05243182 = score(doc=2323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.32301605 = fieldWeight in 2323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2323)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Es wird zunächst ein "ideales Information-Retrieval-System" beschrieben und diskutiert. Als Kernproblem für -selbst bescheidene - Entwicklungen in die dadurch aufgezeigte Richtung wird das "Verstehen" von Texten durch den Computer angesehen, wobei je nach der Aufgabenstellung einer Systemkomponente stets nur ein partielles Verstehen erforderlich ist. Ein relativ einfaches, aber keineswegs triviales Beispiel dieser Art ist die automatische Indexierung von Referatetexten bei vorgegebenen Deskriptorensystem. Von diesem Problem werden Ansätze, Ergebnisse und Erfahrungen mitgeteilt. Darauf aufbauend werden weitere Forschungsrichtungen und Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten mitgeteilt

0.0080237165 = product of:
  0.048142295 = sum of:
    0.048142295 = product of:
      0.09628459 = sum of:
        0.09628459 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09628459 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

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

0.007646307 = product of:
  0.04587784 = sum of:
    0.04587784 = weight(_text_:computer in 2921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04587784 = score(doc=2921,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28263903 = fieldWeight in 2921, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2921)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In universitärer Grundlagenforschung wurde das Computergestützte TeXterschließungssystem (CTX) entwickelt. Es ist ein wörterbuchorientiertes Verfahren, das aufbauend auf einer wort- und satzorientierten Verarbeitung von Texten zu einem deutschsprachigen Text/ Dokument formal-inhaltliche Stichwörter (Grundformen, systemintern "Deskriptoren" genannt) erstellt. Diese dienen als Input für die Computer-Unterstützte Inhaltsanalyse (CUI). Mit Hilfe eines Thesaurus werden die Deskriptoren zu Oberbegriffen zusammengefaßt und die durch CTX erstellte Deskriptorliste über eine Vergleichsliste auf die Kategorien (=Oberbegriffe) des Thesaurus abgebildet. Das Ergebnis wird über mathematisch-statistische Auswertungsverfahren weiterverarbeitet. Weitere Vorteile der Einbringung eines Thesaurus werden genannt

0.007020752 = product of:
  0.04212451 = sum of:
    0.04212451 = product of:
      0.08424902 = sum of:
        0.08424902 = weight(_text_:22 in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08424902 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

20.10.2000 12:22:23

0.006017787 = product of:
  0.03610672 = sum of:
    0.03610672 = product of:
      0.07221344 = sum of:
        0.07221344 = weight(_text_:22 in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07221344 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

14. 6.2015 22:12:44

0.006017787 = product of:
  0.03610672 = sum of:
    0.03610672 = product of:
      0.07221344 = sum of:
        0.07221344 = weight(_text_:22 in 2051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07221344 = score(doc=2051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

14. 6.2015 22:12:56

0.005014823 = product of:
  0.030088935 = sum of:
    0.030088935 = product of:
      0.06017787 = sum of:
        0.06017787 = weight(_text_:22 in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06017787 = score(doc=1952,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

16. 8.1998 12:51:22

0.0043693185 = product of:
  0.02621591 = sum of:
    0.02621591 = weight(_text_:computer in 3650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02621591 = score(doc=3650,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.16150802 = fieldWeight in 3650, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3650)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The attempt to computerize a process, such as indexing, abstracting, classifying, or retrieving information, begins with an analysis of the process into its intellectual and nonintellectual components. That part of the process which is amenable to computerization is mechanical or algorithmic. What is not is intellectual or creative and requires human intervention. Gerard Salton has been an innovator, experimenter, and promoter in the area of mechanized information systems since the early 1960s. He has been particularly ingenious at analyzing the process of information retrieval into its algorithmic components. He received a doctorate in applied mathematics from Harvard University before moving to the computer science department at Cornell, where he developed a prototype automatic retrieval system called SMART. Working with this system he and his students contributed for over a decade to our theoretical understanding of the retrieval process. On a more practical level, they have contributed design criteria for operating retrieval systems. The following selection presents one of the early descriptions of the SMART system; it is valuable as it shows the direction automatic retrieval methods were to take beyond simple word-matching techniques. These include various word normalization techniques to improve recall, for instance, the separation of words into stems and affixes; the correlation and clustering, using statistical association measures, of related terms; and the identification, using a concept thesaurus, of synonymous, broader, narrower, and sibling terms. They include, as weIl, techniques, both linguistic and statistical, to deal with the thorny problem of how to automatically extract from texts index terms that consist of more than one word. They include weighting techniques and various documentrequest matching algorithms. Significant among the latter are those which produce a retrieval output of citations ranked in relevante order. During the 1970s, Salton and his students went an to further refine these various techniques, particularly the weighting and statistical association measures. Many of their early innovations seem commonplace today. Some of their later techniques are still ahead of their time and await technological developments for implementation. The particular focus of the selection that follows is an the evaluation of a particular component of the SMART system, a multilingual thesaurus. By mapping English language expressions and their German equivalents to a common concept number, the thesaurus permitted the automatic processing of German language documents against English language queries and vice versa. The results of the evaluation, as it turned out, were somewhat inconclusive. However, this SMART experiment suggested in a bold and optimistic way how one might proceed to answer such complex questions as What is meant by retrieval language compatability? How it is to be achieved, and how evaluated?

0.0038231534 = product of:
  0.02293892 = sum of:
    0.02293892 = weight(_text_:computer in 3645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02293892 = score(doc=3645,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.14131951 = fieldWeight in 3645, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3645)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.