Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03400038 = product of:
  0.10200114 = sum of:
    0.10200114 = weight(_text_:query in 1147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10200114 = score(doc=1147,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.44470036 = fieldWeight in 1147, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1147)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A prototype system to handle negation in natural language queries to information retrieval systems is presented. Whenever a query that has negation is entered, the system will determine whether or not it is necessary for the user to clarify exactly what constituents in the query are being negated. If clarification is needed, the user is presented with a list of choices and asked to select the appropriate one. The algorithm used is based on the results of a survey adminitered to 64 subjects. The subjects were given a number of queries using negation. For each query, several possible choices for the negated constituent(s) were given. Whenever a lexical unit composed of nouns connected by the conjunction 'and' was negated, there was general agreement on the response. But whenever there were multiple lexical units involved, such as complex lexical units connected by 'and' or prepositional phrases, the subjects were divided on the choices. The results of this survey indicate that it is not possible for a system to automatically disambiguate all uses of negotiation. However, it is possible for the user interface to handle disambiguation through a clarification dialog during which a user is asked to select from a list of possible interpretations

0.031408206 = product of:
  0.09422461 = sum of:
    0.09422461 = weight(_text_:query in 3531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09422461 = score(doc=3531,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.41079655 = fieldWeight in 3531, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3531)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.019630127 = product of:
  0.05889038 = sum of:
    0.05889038 = weight(_text_:query in 5231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05889038 = score(doc=5231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.25674784 = fieldWeight in 5231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5231)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this issue we begin with a paper where Eastman points out that conventional narrower queries (the use of conjunctions and phrases) in a web engine search will reduce returned number of hits but not necessarily increase precision in the top ranked documents in the return. Thus by precision anomalies Eastman means that search narrowing activity results in no precision change or a decrease in precision. Multiple queries with multiple engines were run by students for a three-year period and the formulation/engine combination was recorded as was the number of hits. Relevance was also recorded for the top ten and top twenty ranked retrievals. While narrower searches reduced total hits they did not usually improve precision. Initial high precision and poor query reformulation account for some of the results, as did Alta Vista's failure to use the ranking algorithm incorporated in its regular search in its advanced search feature. However, since the top listed returns often reoccurred in all formulations, it would seem that the ranking algorithms are doing a consistent job of practical precision ranking that is not improved by reformulation.

0.0078009525 = product of:
  0.023402857 = sum of:
    0.023402857 = product of:
      0.046805713 = sum of:
        0.046805713 = weight(_text_:22 in 3555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046805713 = score(doc=3555,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049352113 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3555, 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=3555)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

25.12.1995 22:52:34

0.0078009525 = product of:
  0.023402857 = sum of:
    0.023402857 = product of:
      0.046805713 = sum of:
        0.046805713 = weight(_text_:22 in 3673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046805713 = score(doc=3673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049352113 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3673, 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=3673)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 5.1999 9:35:20