Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.005959168 = product of:
  0.023836672 = sum of:
    0.023836672 = product of:
      0.07151002 = sum of:
        0.07151002 = weight(_text_:language in 1089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07151002 = score(doc=1089,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042049456 = queryNorm
            0.4334667 = fieldWeight in 1089, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1089)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

For many years, the Web became an important media for the diffusion of multilingual resources. Linguistic differenees still form a major obstacle to scientific, cultural, and educational exchange. Besides this linguistic diversity, a multitude of databases and collections now contain documents in various formats, which may also adversely affect the retrieval process. This paper describes a research project aiming to verify the existing relations between two indexing approaches: traditional image indexing recommending the use of controlled vocabularies or free image indexing using uncontrolled vocabulary, and their respective performance for image retrieval, in a multilingual context. This research also compares image retrieval within two contexts: a monolingual context where the language of the query is the same as the indexing language; and a multilingual context where the language of the query is different from the indexing language. This research will indicate whether one of these indexing approaches surpasses the other, in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of the image searchers. This paper presents the context and the problem statement of the research project. The experiment carried out is also described, as well as the data collection methods

0.005959168 = product of:
  0.023836672 = sum of:
    0.023836672 = product of:
      0.07151002 = sum of:
        0.07151002 = weight(_text_:language in 3250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07151002 = score(doc=3250,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042049456 = queryNorm
            0.4334667 = fieldWeight in 3250, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3250)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper reports on a research project that compared two different approaches for the indexing of ordinary images representing common objects: traditional indexing with controlled vocabulary and free indexing with uncontrolled vocabulary. We also compared image retrieval within two contexts: a monolingual context where the language of the query is the same as the indexing language and, secondly, a multilingual context where the language of the query is different from the indexing language. As a means of comparison in evaluating the performance of each indexing form, a simulation of the retrieval process involving 30 images was performed with 60 participants. A questionnaire was also submitted to participants in order to gather information with regard to the retrieval process and performance. The results of the retrieval simulation confirm that the retrieval is more effective and more satisfactory for the searcher when the images are indexed with the approach combining the controlled and uncontrolled vocabularies. The results also indicate that the indexing approach with controlled vocabulary is more efficient (queries needed to retrieve an image) than the uncontrolled vocabulary indexing approach. However, no significant differences in terms of temporal efficiency (time required to retrieve an image) was observed. Finally, the comparison of the two linguistic contexts reveal that the retrieval is more effective and more efficient (queries needed to retrieve an image) in the monolingual context rather than the multilingual context. Furthermore, image searchers are more satisfied when the retrieval is done in a monolingual context rather than a multilingual context.

0.004065041 = product of:
  0.016260164 = sum of:
    0.016260164 = product of:
      0.04878049 = sum of:
        0.04878049 = weight(_text_:29 in 981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04878049 = score(doc=981,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14791684 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042049456 = queryNorm
            0.3297832 = fieldWeight in 981, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=981)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26.12.2007 18:29:29

0.0023953482 = product of:
  0.009581393 = sum of:
    0.009581393 = product of:
      0.028744178 = sum of:
        0.028744178 = weight(_text_:29 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028744178 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14791684 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042049456 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4820)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.298 vom 23.12.2010, S.29 (Scalla, M.: Bilder sehen Dich an).

0.0014372088 = product of:
  0.0057488354 = sum of:
    0.0057488354 = product of:
      0.017246505 = sum of:
        0.017246505 = weight(_text_:29 in 4047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017246505 = score(doc=4047,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14791684 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042049456 = queryNorm
            0.11659596 = fieldWeight in 4047, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4047)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.298 vom 23.12.2010, S.29

0.0014242802 = product of:
  0.005697121 = sum of:
    0.005697121 = product of:
      0.017091362 = sum of:
        0.017091362 = weight(_text_:22 in 4054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017091362 = score(doc=4054,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14725003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042049456 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 4054, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4054)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

6. 1.2011 11:22:12