Search (1396 results, page 1 of 70)

0.12742138 = product of:
  0.25484276 = sum of:
    0.25484276 = sum of:
      0.18633564 = weight(_text_:light in 4591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18633564 = score(doc=4591,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.63808745 = fieldWeight in 4591, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4591)
      0.068507105 = weight(_text_:22 in 4591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.068507105 = score(doc=4591,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4591, 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=4591)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this light hearted and practical compilation, Weitz collects and updates music cataloguing questions and answers featured in OCLC's "MOUG Newsletter."

Date

25.11.2005 18:22:29

0.1019371 = product of:
  0.2038742 = sum of:
    0.2038742 = sum of:
      0.14906852 = weight(_text_:light in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14906852 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.51047 = fieldWeight in 4867, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4867)
      0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054805685 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4867, 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=4867)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The current subject gateways have evolved over time when the discipline of Internet resource discovery was in its infancy. This is reflected by the lack of well-established, light-weight, deployable, easy-to-use, standards for metadata and information retrieval. We provide an introduction to the architecture, standards and software solutions in use by subject gateways, and to the issues that must be addressed to support future subject gateways

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:24

0.100861 = sum of:
  0.08030887 = product of:
    0.24092661 = sum of:
      0.24092661 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.24092661 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.42868128 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.02055213 = product of:
    0.04110426 = sum of:
      0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04110426 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.

Date

8. 1.2013 10:22:32

0.07824999 = product of:
  0.15649998 = sum of:
    0.15649998 = sum of:
      0.12909713 = weight(_text_:light in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12909713 = score(doc=2741,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.44208 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
      0.027402842 = weight(_text_:22 in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027402842 = score(doc=2741,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study seeks to find out how human beings cluster Web pages naturally. Twenty Web pages retrieved by the Northem Light search engine for each of 10 queries were sorted by 3 subjects into categories that were natural or meaningful to them. lt was found that different subjects clustered the same set of Web pages quite differently and created different categories. The average inter-subject similarity of the clusters created was a low 0.27. Subjects created an average of 5.4 clusters for each sorting. The categories constructed can be divided into 10 types. About 1/3 of the categories created were topical. Another 20% of the categories relate to the degree of relevance or usefulness. The rest of the categories were subject-independent categories such as format, purpose, authoritativeness and direction to other sources. The authors plan to develop automatic methods for categorizing Web pages using the common categories created by the subjects. lt is hoped that the techniques developed can be used by Web search engines to automatically organize Web pages retrieved into categories that are natural to users. 1. Introduction The World Wide Web is an increasingly important source of information for people globally because of its ease of access, the ease of publishing, its ability to transcend geographic and national boundaries, its flexibility and heterogeneity and its dynamic nature. However, Web users also find it increasingly difficult to locate relevant and useful information in this vast information storehouse. Web search engines, despite their scope and power, appear to be quite ineffective. They retrieve too many pages, and though they attempt to rank retrieved pages in order of probable relevance, often the relevant documents do not appear in the top-ranked 10 or 20 documents displayed. Several studies have found that users do not know how to use the advanced features of Web search engines, and do not know how to formulate and re-formulate queries. Users also typically exert minimal effort in performing, evaluating and refining their searches, and are unwilling to scan more than 10 or 20 items retrieved (Jansen, Spink, Bateman & Saracevic, 1998). This suggests that the conventional ranked-list display of search results does not satisfy user requirements, and that better ways of presenting and summarizing search results have to be developed. One promising approach is to group retrieved pages into clusters or categories to allow users to navigate immediately to the "promising" clusters where the most useful Web pages are likely to be located. This approach has been adopted by a number of search engines (notably Northem Light) and search agents.

Date

12. 9.2004 9:56:22

Object

Northern Light

0.07645283 = product of:
  0.15290566 = sum of:
    0.15290566 = sum of:
      0.11180139 = weight(_text_:light in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11180139 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
      0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04110426 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3602, 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=3602)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study is an examination of the overlap between author-assigned keywords and cataloger-assigned Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) for a set of electronic theses and dissertations in Ohio State University's online catalog. The project is intended to contribute to the literature on the issue of keywords versus controlled vocabularies in the use of online catalogs and databases. Findings support previous studies' conclusions that both keywords and controlled vocabularies complement one another. Further, even in the presence of bibliographic record enhancements, such as abstracts or summaries, keywords and subject headings provided a significant number of unique terms that could affect the success of keyword searches. Implications for the maintenance of controlled vocabularies such as LCSH also are discussed in light of the patterns of matches and nonmatches found between the keywords and their corresponding subject headings.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.06371069 = product of:
  0.12742138 = sum of:
    0.12742138 = sum of:
      0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09316782 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
      0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034253553 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1428, 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=1428)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Humans can make hasty, but generally robust judgements about what a text fragment is, or is not, about. Such judgements are termed information inference. This article furnishes an account of information inference from a psychologistic stance. By drawing an theories from nonclassical logic and applied cognition, an information inference mechanism is proposed that makes inferences via computations of information flow through an approximation of a conceptual space. Within a conceptual space information is represented geometrically. In this article, geometric representations of words are realized as vectors in a high dimensional semantic space, which is automatically constructed from a text corpus. Two approaches were presented for priming vector representations according to context. The first approach uses a concept combination heuristic to adjust the vector representation of a concept in the light of the representation of another concept. The second approach computes a prototypical concept an the basis of exemplar trace texts and moves it in the dimensional space according to the context. Information inference is evaluated by measuring the effectiveness of query models derived by information flow computations. Results show that information flow contributes significantly to query model effectiveness, particularly with respect to precision. Moreover, retrieval effectiveness compares favorably with two probabilistic query models, and another based an semantic association. More generally, this article can be seen as a contribution towards realizing operational systems that mimic text-based human reasoning.

Date

22. 3.2003 19:35:46

0.06371069 = product of:
  0.12742138 = sum of:
    0.12742138 = sum of:
      0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 1753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09316782 = score(doc=1753,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 1753, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1753)
      0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 1753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034253553 = score(doc=1753,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1753, 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=1753)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This book offers a comprehensive and consistent mathematical approach to information retrieval (IR) without which no implementation is possible, and sheds an entirely new light upon the structure of IR models. It contains the descriptions of all IR models in a unified formal style and language, along with examples for each, thus offering a comprehensive overview of them. The book also creates mathematical foundations and a consistent mathematical theory (including all mathematical results achieved so far) of IR as a stand-alone mathematical discipline, which thus can be read and taught independently. Also, the book contains all necessary mathematical knowledge on which IR relies, to help the reader avoid searching different sources. The book will be of interest to computer or information scientists, librarians, mathematicians, undergraduate students and researchers whose work involves information retrieval.

Date

22. 3.2008 12:26:32

0.058687486 = product of:
  0.11737497 = sum of:
    0.11737497 = sum of:
      0.09682284 = weight(_text_:light in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09682284 = score(doc=1184,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.33156 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
      0.02055213 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02055213 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 1184, 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=1184)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Google's December 2004 announcement of its intention to collaborate with five major research libraries - Harvard University, the University of Michigan, Stanford University, the University of Oxford, and the New York Public Library - to digitize and surface their print book collections in the Google searching universe has, predictably, stirred conflicting opinion, with some viewing the project as a welcome opportunity to enhance the visibility of library collections in new environments, and others wary of Google's prospective role as gateway to these collections. The project has been vigorously debated on discussion lists and blogs, with the participating libraries commonly referred to as "the Google 5". One point most observers seem to concede is that the questions raised by this initiative are both timely and significant. The Google Print Library Project (GPLP) has galvanized a long overdue, multi-faceted discussion about library print book collections. The print book is core to library identity and practice, but in an era of zero-sum budgeting, it is almost inevitable that print book budgets will decline as budgets for serials, digital resources, and other materials expand. As libraries re-allocate resources to accommodate changing patterns of user needs, print book budgets may be adversely impacted. Of course, the degree of impact will depend on a library's perceived mission. A public library may expect books to justify their shelf-space, with de-accession the consequence of minimal use. A national library, on the other hand, has a responsibility to the scholarly and cultural record and may seek to collect comprehensively within particular areas, with the attendant obligation to secure the long-term retention of its print book collections. The combination of limited budgets, changing user needs, and differences in library collection strategies underscores the need to think about a collective, or system-wide, print book collection - in particular, how can an inter-institutional system be organized to achieve goals that would be difficult, and/or prohibitively expensive, for any one library to undertake individually [4]? Mass digitization programs like GPLP cast new light on these and other issues surrounding the future of library print book collections, but at this early stage, it is light that illuminates only dimly. It will be some time before GPLP's implications for libraries and library print book collections can be fully appreciated and evaluated. But the strong interest and lively debate generated by this initiative suggest that some preliminary analysis - premature though it may be - would be useful, if only to undertake a rough mapping of the terrain over which GPLP potentially will extend. At the least, some early perspective helps shape interesting questions for the future, when the boundaries of GPLP become settled, workflows for producing and managing the digitized materials become systematized, and usage patterns within the GPLP framework begin to emerge.
This article offers some perspectives on GPLP in light of what is known about library print book collections in general, and those of the Google 5 in particular, from information in OCLC's WorldCat bibliographic database and holdings file. Questions addressed include: * Coverage: What proportion of the system-wide print book collection will GPLP potentially cover? What is the degree of holdings overlap across the print book collections of the five participating libraries? * Language: What is the distribution of languages associated with the print books held by the GPLP libraries? Which languages are predominant? * Copyright: What proportion of the GPLP libraries' print book holdings are out of copyright? * Works: How many distinct works are represented in the holdings of the GPLP libraries? How does a focus on works impact coverage and holdings overlap? * Convergence: What are the effects on coverage of using a different set of five libraries? What are the effects of adding the holdings of additional libraries to those of the GPLP libraries, and how do these effects vary by library type? These questions certainly do not exhaust the analytical possibilities presented by GPLP. More in-depth analysis might look at Google 5 coverage in particular subject areas; it also would be interesting to see how many books covered by the GPLP have already been digitized in other contexts. However, these questions are left to future studies. The purpose here is to explore a few basic questions raised by GPLP, and in doing so, provide an empirical context for the debate that is sure to continue for some time to come. A secondary objective is to lay some groundwork for a general set of questions that could be used to explore the implications of any mass digitization initiative. A suggested list of questions is provided in the conclusion of the article.

Date

26.12.2011 14:08:22

0.053539254 = product of:
  0.10707851 = sum of:
    0.10707851 = product of:
      0.3212355 = sum of:
        0.3212355 = weight(_text_:3a in 140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3212355 = score(doc=140,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42868128 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 140, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=140)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl. auch: https://studylibde.com/doc/13053640/richard-schrodt. Vgl. auch: http%3A%2F%2Fwww.univie.ac.at%2FGermanistik%2Fschrodt%2Fvorlesung%2Fwissenschaftssprache.doc&usg=AOvVaw1lDLDR6NFf1W0-oC9mEUJf.

0.052703682 = product of:
  0.105407365 = sum of:
    0.105407365 = product of:
      0.21081473 = sum of:
        0.21081473 = weight(_text_:light in 5578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21081473 = score(doc=5578,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.7219136 = fieldWeight in 5578, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5578)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Suchmaschinen im World Wide Web arbeiten automatisch: Sie spüren Dokumente auf, indexieren sie, halten die Datenbank (mehr oder minder) aktuell und bieten den Kunden Retrievaloberflächen an. In unserem Known-Item-Retrievaltest (Password 11/2000) schnitten - in dieser Reihenfolge - Google, Alta Vista, Northern Light und FAST (All the Web) am besten ab. Die letzten drei Systeme arbeiten mit einer Kombination aus informationslinguistischen und informationsstatistischen Algorithmen, weshalb wir sie hier gemeinsam besprechen wollen. Im Zentrum unserer informationswissenschaftlichen Analysen stehen die "Highlights" der jeweiligen Suchwerkzeuge

0.05096855 = product of:
  0.1019371 = sum of:
    0.1019371 = sum of:
      0.07453426 = weight(_text_:light in 301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07453426 = score(doc=301,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.255235 = fieldWeight in 301, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=301)
      0.027402842 = weight(_text_:22 in 301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027402842 = score(doc=301,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 301, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=301)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Aus dem Inhalt: Konrad Ehlich / Dorothee Heller: Einleitung - Konrad Ehlich: Mehrsprachigkeit in der Wissenschaftskommunikation - Illusion oder Notwendigkeit? - Christian Fandrych: Bildhaftigkeit und Formelhaftigkeit in der allgemeinen Wissenschaftssprache als Herausforderung für Deutsch als Fremdsprache - Dorothee Heller: L'autore traccia un quadro... - Beobachtungen zur Versprachlichung wissenschaftlichen Handelns im Deutschen und Italienischen - Kristin Stezano Cotelo: Die studentische Seminararbeit - studentische Wissensverarbeitung zwischen Alltagswissen und wissenschaftlichem Wissen - Sabine Ylönen: Training wissenschaftlicher Kommunikation mit E-Materialien. Beispiel mündliche Hochschulprüfung - Susanne Guckelsberger: Zur kommunikativen Struktur von mündlichen Referaten in universitären Lehrveranstaltungen - Giancarmine Bongo: Asymmetrien in wissenschaftlicher Kommunikation - Klaus-Dieter Baumann: Die interdisziplinäre Analyse rhetorisch-stilistischer Mittel der Fachkommunikation als ein Zugang zum Fachdenken - Marcello Soffritti: Der übersetzungstheoretische und -kritische Diskurs als fachsprachliche Kommunikation. Ansätze zu Beschreibung und Wertung - Karl Gerhard Hempel: Nationalstile in archäologischen Fachtexten. Bemerkungen zu `Stilbeschreibungen' im Deutschen und im Italienischen - Ingrid Wiese: Zur Situation des Deutschen als Wissenschaftssprache in der Medizin - Winfried Thielmann: «...it seems that light is propagated in time... » - zur Befreiung des wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisprozesses durch die Vernakulärsprache Englisch.

Date

7. 5.2007 12:16:22

0.046846848 = product of:
  0.093693696 = sum of:
    0.093693696 = product of:
      0.28108108 = sum of:
        0.28108108 = weight(_text_:3a in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.28108108 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42868128 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5386707&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5386707.

0.04658391 = product of:
  0.09316782 = sum of:
    0.09316782 = product of:
      0.18633564 = sum of:
        0.18633564 = weight(_text_:light in 3738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18633564 = score(doc=3738,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.63808745 = fieldWeight in 3738, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3738)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Übers. des Titels: A conceptual model for the new BNCF subject headings: subject indexing in the light of FRBR

0.04658391 = product of:
  0.09316782 = sum of:
    0.09316782 = product of:
      0.18633564 = sum of:
        0.18633564 = weight(_text_:light in 3169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18633564 = score(doc=3169,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.63808745 = fieldWeight in 3169, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3169)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents and compares three feature reduction techniques that were applied to Arabic text. The techniques include stemming, light stemming, and word clusters. The effects of the aforementioned techniques were studied and analyzed on the K-nearest-neighbor classifier. Stemming reduces words to their stems. Light stemming, by comparison, removes common affixes from words without reducing them to their stems. Word clusters group synonymous words into clusters and each cluster is represented by a single word. The purpose of employing the previous methods is to reduce the size of document vectors without affecting the accuracy of the classifiers. The comparison metric includes size of document vectors, classification time, and accuracy (in terms of precision and recall). Several experiments were carried out using four different representations of the same corpus: the first version uses stem-vectors, the second uses light stem-vectors, the third uses word clusters, and the fourth uses the original words (without any transformation) as representatives of documents. The corpus consists of 15,000 documents that fall into three categories: sports, economics, and politics. In terms of vector sizes and classification time, the stemmed vectors consumed the smallest size and the least time necessary to classify a testing dataset that consists of 6,000 documents. The light stemmed vectors superseded the other three representations in terms of classification accuracy.

0.040342852 = product of:
  0.080685705 = sum of:
    0.080685705 = product of:
      0.16137141 = sum of:
        0.16137141 = weight(_text_:light in 3301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16137141 = score(doc=3301,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.55259997 = fieldWeight in 3301, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3301)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper describes and evaluates various stemming and indexing strategies for the Russian language. We design and evaluate two stemming approaches, a light and a more aggressive one, and compare these stemmers to the Snowball stemmer, to no stemming, and also to a language-independent approach (n-gram). To evaluate the suggested stemming strategies we apply various probabilistic information retrieval (IR) models, including the Okapi, the Divergence from Randomness (DFR), a statistical language model (LM), as well as two vector-space approaches, namely, the classical tf idf scheme and the dtu-dtn model. We find that the vector-space dtu-dtn and the DFR models tend to result in better retrieval effectiveness than the Okapi, LM, or tf idf models, while only the latter two IR approaches result in statistically significant performance differences. Ignoring stemming generally reduces the MAP by more than 50%, and these differences are always significant. When applying an n-gram approach, performance differences are usually lower than an approach involving stemming. Finally, our light stemmer tends to perform best, although performance differences between the light, aggressive, and Snowball stemmers are not statistically significant.

0.040154435 = product of:
  0.08030887 = sum of:
    0.08030887 = product of:
      0.24092661 = sum of:
        0.24092661 = weight(_text_:3a in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24092661 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42868128 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Vgl.: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?reload=true&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F4755313%2F4755314%2F04755480.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4755480&authDecision=-203.

0.039527763 = product of:
  0.079055525 = sum of:
    0.079055525 = product of:
      0.15811105 = sum of:
        0.15811105 = weight(_text_:light in 1379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15811105 = score(doc=1379,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.5414352 = fieldWeight in 1379, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1379)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors report on the findings of a usability test conducted to evaluate the usability of the VeriaGrid online system. The VeriaGrid (www.theveriagrid.org) is a prototype virtual map that focuses on the provision of information related to the cultural heritage of the city of Veria (Greece). It has been developed under the Light Project by the Central Public Library of Veria (www.libver.gr). It is an interactive application that includes various functional or thematic areas such as an interactive digital map of Veria, image gallery, videoclips, panoramic site photos, and general information about the city of Veria. The findings of the usability test revealed that users had some difficulties in using novel features of the digital map (such as the Recommended Points and the Routes functions) and finding textual information about cultural heritage of the city of Veria. Users, however, were satisfied with the overall usability of the system. In light of these findings, some recommendations for improving the usability of the system are made.

0.039527763 = product of:
  0.079055525 = sum of:
    0.079055525 = product of:
      0.15811105 = sum of:
        0.15811105 = weight(_text_:light in 2037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15811105 = score(doc=2037,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.5414352 = fieldWeight in 2037, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2037)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reports on the underlying IR problems encountered when dealing with the complex morphology and compound constructions found in the Hungarian language. It describes evaluations carried out on two general stemming strategies for this language, and also demonstrates that a light stemming approach could be quite effective. Based on searches done on the CLEF test collection, we find that a more aggressive suffix-stripping approach may produce better MAP. When compared to an IR scheme without stemming or one based on only a light stemmer, we find the differences to be statistically significant. When compared with probabilistic, vector-space and language models, we find that the Okapi model results in the best retrieval effectiveness. The resulting MAP is found to be about 35% better than the classical tf idf approach, particularly for very short requests. Finally, we demonstrate that applying an automatic decompounding procedure for both queries and documents significantly improves IR performance (+10%), compared to word-based indexing strategies.

0.038753472 = product of:
  0.077506945 = sum of:
    0.077506945 = product of:
      0.15501389 = sum of:
        0.15501389 = weight(_text_:22 in 4362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15501389 = score(doc=4362,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.8754574 = fieldWeight in 4362, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4362)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2000 19:22:27

0.038753472 = product of:
  0.077506945 = sum of:
    0.077506945 = product of:
      0.15501389 = sum of:
        0.15501389 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15501389 = score(doc=3211,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.8754574 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2005 9:16:22