Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.05644834 = product of:
  0.08467251 = sum of:
    0.0373419 = weight(_text_:on in 29) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0373419 = score(doc=29,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.34020463 = fieldWeight in 29, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=29)
    0.04733061 = product of:
      0.09466122 = sum of:
        0.09466122 = weight(_text_:22 in 29) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09466122 = score(doc=29,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 29, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=29)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

6. 1.1999 10:22:45

0.024192145 = product of:
  0.036288217 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 2575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=2575,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2575, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2575)
    0.020284547 = product of:
      0.040569093 = sum of:
        0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 2575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040569093 = score(doc=2575,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2575, 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=2575)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

An important aspect of information retrieval systems is domain independence, where the subject of the information is not restricted to certain domains of knowledge. This should be able to represent any topic and although the text representation does not involve any semantic knowledge, lexical and syntactic analysis of the text allows the representation to remain domain independent. Reports research at Dublin City University, Ireland, which concentrates on the lexical and syntactic levels of natural language analysis and describes a domain independent automatic information retrieval system which accesses a very large database of newspaper text from the Wall Street Journal. The system represents the text in the form of syntax trees, and these trees are used in the matching process. Reports early results from the stuyd

Source

Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon

0.010669115 = product of:
  0.032007344 = sum of:
    0.032007344 = weight(_text_:on in 7269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032007344 = score(doc=7269,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 7269, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7269)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 18(1993) no.2, S.3-8

0.007888435 = product of:
  0.023665305 = sum of:
    0.023665305 = product of:
      0.04733061 = sum of:
        0.04733061 = weight(_text_:22 in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04733061 = score(doc=2574,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2574, 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=2574)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 7.2000 19:17:40

0.007112743 = product of:
  0.021338228 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=133,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 133, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=133)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes correspondence between linguistics and information retrieval. Notes relevant ideas of linguistics which are useful for information retrieval, particularly at the levels of semantics and syntax. Demonstrates that the conceptual model of Ranganathan based on canons, postulates and pronciples contains the principles expressed by other scholars in the field of information retrieval. Implements Ranganathan's conceptual models in information retrieval tools, using PRECIS as an example. Concludes the Ranganathan models contain all the germinal ideas to meet the challenges of modern technology

0.0053345575 = product of:
  0.016003672 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 2576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=2576,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2576, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2576)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Argues that the integration of computational psycholinguistics can improve corporate communication, and thus become a new strategic tool. An electronic dictionary was created of basic, neutral and negative connotations for nouns, verbs and adjectives appearing in press releases and other communication media, which can be updated with client specific words. The focus on negative messages has the objective of detecting who, why and how publics are criticized, to learn from the vocabulary of opinion leaders and to improve issues management proactively. Suggests a new form of analysis called 'computational linguistic context analysis' (CLCA) by analyzing nominal groups of negative words, rather than monitoring content analysis in the traditional way. Concludes that CLCA can be used to analyze large quantities of press cuttings about a company and could, theoretically, be used to analyze the structure, language and style of a particular journalist to whom it is planned to send a press release or article

0.0053345575 = product of:
  0.016003672 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Argumentation consists of representation of the basic structuralist concepts of language/semiotic as a two-level form, as a form of expression and here especially form of content, and of application of these concepts to the phenomena of the representation of the contents of documents. On the basis of argumentation the paper questions the notion of "organizing knowledge", is it, or in what sense it is possible to organize knowledge. The paper bings out some reservations to viewing content representation as organizing knowledge in a strong sense and suggests that instead could be used a notion of (meta)documentation, characterized as communication concerning documents