Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.023319827 = product of:
  0.116599135 = sum of:
    0.116599135 = weight(_text_:40 in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.116599135 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19765252 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.813818 = idf(docFreq=2651, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051825367 = queryNorm
        0.5899198 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.813818 = idf(docFreq=2651, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information processing and management. 40(2004) no.6, S.869-

0.008425946 = product of:
  0.04212973 = sum of:
    0.04212973 = weight(_text_:22 in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04212973 = score(doc=2230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18148361 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051825367 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2230, 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=2230)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (ACM SIGIR '96), Zürich, Switzerland, August 18-22, 1996. Eds.: H.P. Frei et al

0.008425946 = product of:
  0.04212973 = sum of:
    0.04212973 = weight(_text_:22 in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04212973 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18148361 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051825367 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3589, 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=3589)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Information searching in practice seldom is an end in itself. In work, work task (WT) performance forms the context, which information searching should serve. Therefore, information retrieval (IR) systems development/evaluation should take the WT context into account. The present paper analyzes how WT features: task complexity and task types, affect information searching in authentic work: the types of information needs, search processes, and search media. We collected data on 22 information professionals in authentic work situations in three organization types: city administration, universities, and companies. The data comprise 286 WTs and 420 search tasks (STs). The data include transaction logs, video recordings, daily questionnaires, interviews. and observation. The data were analyzed quantitatively. Even if the participants used a range of search media, most STs were simple throughout the data, and up to 42% of WTs did not include searching. WT's effects on STs are not straightforward: different WT types react differently to WT complexity. Due to the simplicity of authentic searching, the WT/ST types in interactive IR experiments should be reconsidered.

0.00832851 = product of:
  0.04164255 = sum of:
    0.04164255 = weight(_text_:40 in 2533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04164255 = score(doc=2533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19765252 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.813818 = idf(docFreq=2651, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051825367 = queryNorm
        0.21068566 = fieldWeight in 2533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.813818 = idf(docFreq=2651, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2533)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information processing and management. 40(2004) no.4, S.633-654

0.00832851 = product of:
  0.04164255 = sum of:
    0.04164255 = weight(_text_:40 in 5601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04164255 = score(doc=5601,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19765252 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.813818 = idf(docFreq=2651, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051825367 = queryNorm
        0.21068566 = fieldWeight in 5601, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.813818 = idf(docFreq=2651, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5601)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - To present a method for creating a comparable document collection from two document collections in different languages. Design/methodology/approach - The best query keys were extracted from a Finnish source collection (articles of the newspaper Aamulehti) with the relative average term frequency formula. The keys were translated into English with a dictionary-based query translation program. The resulting lists of words were used as queries that were run against the target collection (Los Angeles Times articles) with the nearest neighbor method. The documents were aligned with unrestricted and date-restricted alignment schemes, which were also combined. Findings - The combined alignment scheme was found the best, when the relatedness of the document pairs was assessed with a five-degree relevance scale. Of the 400 document pairs, roughly 40 percent were highly or fairly related and 75 percent included at least lexical similarity. Research limitations/implications - The number of alignment pairs was small due to the short common time period of the two collections, and their geographical (and thus, topical) remoteness. In future, our aim is to build larger comparable corpora in various languages and use them as source of translation knowledge for the purposes of cross-language information retrieval (CLIR). Practical implications - Readily available parallel corpora are scarce. With this method, two unrelated document collections can relatively easily be aligned to create a CLIR resource. Originality/value - The method can be applied to weakly linked collections and morphologically complex languages, such as Finnish.

0.0070216223 = product of:
  0.03510811 = sum of:
    0.03510811 = weight(_text_:22 in 1369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03510811 = score(doc=1369,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18148361 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051825367 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1369, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1369)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:22:42

0.0070216223 = product of:
  0.03510811 = sum of:
    0.03510811 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03510811 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18148361 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051825367 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06