Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.08781542 = product of:
  0.13172312 = sum of:
    0.10759281 = weight(_text_:systematic in 1280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10759281 = score(doc=1280,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.3788859 = fieldWeight in 1280, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1280)
    0.024130303 = product of:
      0.048260607 = sum of:
        0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048260607 = score(doc=1280,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 1280, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1280)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article provides a technical review of semantic search methods used to support text-based search over formal Semantic Web knowledge bases. Our focus is on ranking methods and auxiliary processes explored by existing semantic search systems, outlined within broad areas of classification. We present reflective examples from the literature in some detail, which should appeal to readers interested in a deeper perspective on the various methods and systems implemented in the outlined literature. The presentation covers graph exploration and propagation methods, adaptations of classic probabilistic retrieval models, and query-independent link analysis via flexible extensions to the PageRank algorithm. Future research directions are discussed, including development of more cohesive retrieval models to unlock further potentials and uses, data indexing schemes, integration with user interfaces, and building community consensus for more systematic evaluation and gradual development.

0.020983277 = product of:
  0.06294983 = sum of:
    0.06294983 = product of:
      0.12589966 = sum of:
        0.12589966 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12589966 = score(doc=4548,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.6619802 = fieldWeight in 4548, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

I believe that Google Scholar is the most popular academic indexing way for researchers and citations. However, some other indexing institutions may be more professional than Google Scholar but not as popular as Google Scholar. Other indexing websites like Scopus and Clarivate are providing more statistical figures for scholars, institutions or even journals. On account of publication citations, always Google Scholar shows higher citations for a paper than other indexing websites since Google Scholar consider most of the publication platforms so he can easily count the citations. While other databases just consider the citations come from those journals that are already indexed in their database

0.013931636 = product of:
  0.041794907 = sum of:
    0.041794907 = product of:
      0.083589815 = sum of:
        0.083589815 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083589815 = score(doc=1165,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.4395151 = fieldWeight in 1165, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1165)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

One of the main themes in text mining is text representation, which is fundamental and indispensable for text-based intellegent information processing. Generally, text representation inludes two tasks: indexing and weighting. This paper has comparatively studied TF*IDF, LSI and multi-word for text representation. We used a Chinese and an English document collection to respectively evaluate the three methods in information retreival and text categorization. Experimental results have demonstrated that in text categorization, LSI has better performance than other methods in both document collections. Also, LSI has produced the best performance in retrieving English documents. This outcome has shown that LSI has both favorable semantic and statistical quality and is different with the claim that LSI can not produce discriminative power for indexing.

Object

Latent Semantic Indexing

0.009479279 = product of:
  0.028437834 = sum of:
    0.028437834 = product of:
      0.05687567 = sum of:
        0.05687567 = weight(_text_:indexing in 278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05687567 = score(doc=278,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.29905218 = fieldWeight in 278, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=278)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

State-of-the-art search engine ranking methods combine several distinct sources of relevance evidence to produce a high-quality ranking of results for each query. The fusion of information is currently done at query-processing time, which has a direct effect on the response time of search systems. Previous research also shows that an alternative to improve search efficiency in textual databases is to precompute term impacts at indexing time. In this article, we propose a novel alternative to precompute term impacts, providing a generic framework for combining any distinct set of sources of evidence by using a machine-learning technique. This method retains the advantages of producing high-quality results, but avoids the costs of combining evidence at query-processing time. Our method, called Learn to Precompute Evidence Fusion (LePrEF), uses genetic programming to compute a unified precomputed impact value for each term found in each document prior to query processing, at indexing time. Compared with previous research on precomputing term impacts, our method offers the advantage of providing a generic framework to precompute impact using any set of relevance evidence at any text collection, whereas previous research articles do not. The precomputed impact values are indexed and used later for computing document ranking at query-processing time. By doing so, our method effectively reduces the query processing to simple additions of such impacts. We show that this approach, while leading to results comparable to state-of-the-art ranking methods, also can lead to a significant decrease in computational costs during query processing.

0.008975455 = product of:
  0.026926363 = sum of:
    0.026926363 = product of:
      0.053852726 = sum of:
        0.053852726 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053852726 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, 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=1431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 8.2014 17:05:18

0.008975455 = product of:
  0.026926363 = sum of:
    0.026926363 = product of:
      0.053852726 = sum of:
        0.053852726 = weight(_text_:22 in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053852726 = score(doc=1484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1484, 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=1484)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

13. 9.2014 14:45:22

0.007933255 = product of:
  0.023799766 = sum of:
    0.023799766 = product of:
      0.04759953 = sum of:
        0.04759953 = weight(_text_:22 in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04759953 = score(doc=2591,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2591, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2591)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22
18. 9.2018 18:22:56

0.005609659 = product of:
  0.016828977 = sum of:
    0.016828977 = product of:
      0.033657953 = sum of:
        0.033657953 = weight(_text_:22 in 241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033657953 = score(doc=241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 241, 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=241)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

11. 6.2012 14:22:34

0.005609659 = product of:
  0.016828977 = sum of:
    0.016828977 = product of:
      0.033657953 = sum of:
        0.033657953 = weight(_text_:22 in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033657953 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 664, 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=664)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2013 19:34:49