Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

0.04811154 = product of:
  0.12027885 = sum of:
    0.032756116 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032756116 = score(doc=4696,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 4696, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4696)
    0.08752273 = weight(_text_:semantic in 4696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08752273 = score(doc=4696,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.45476598 = fieldWeight in 4696, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4696)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

WordNet, a lexical database for English, is organized around semantic and lexical relationships between synsets, concepts represented by sets of synonymous word senses. Offering reasonably comprehensive coverage of the nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs of general English, WordNet is a widely used resource for dealing with the ambiguity that arises from homonymy, polysemy, and synonymy. WordNet is used in many information-related tasks and applications (e.g., word sense disambiguation, semantic similarity, lexical chaining, alignment of parallel corpora, text segmentation, sentiment and subjectivity analysis, text classification, information retrieval, text summarization, question answering, information extraction, and machine translation).

0.043284822 = product of:
  0.108212054 = sum of:
    0.04632414 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04632414 = score(doc=3144,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
    0.06188791 = weight(_text_:semantic in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06188791 = score(doc=3144,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.32156807 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Effective use of syntagmatic relationships in index languages has suffered from inaccurate or incomplete characterization in both linguistics and information science. A number of 'myths' about syntagmatic relationships are debunked: the exclusivity of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships, linearity as a defining characteristic of syntagmatic relationships, the restriction of syntagmatic relationships to surface linguistic units, the limitation of syntagmatic relationship benefits in document retrieval to precision, and the general irrelevance of syntagmatic relationships for document retrieval. None of the mechanisms currently used with index languages is powerful enough to achieve the levels of precision and recall that the expression of conceptual syntagmatic relationships is in theory capable of. New designs for expressing these relationships in index languages will need to take into account such characteristics as their semantic nature, systematicity, generalizability and constituent nature

0.043284822 = product of:
  0.108212054 = sum of:
    0.04632414 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04632414 = score(doc=1150,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 1150, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1150)
    0.06188791 = weight(_text_:semantic in 1150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06188791 = score(doc=1150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.32156807 = fieldWeight in 1150, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1150)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Relevance arises from relationships between user needs and documents/information. In the quest for relevant retrieval, some content-based relationships are best used initially to cast a net that emphasizes recall, while others, both content- and non-content-based, are best used subsequently as filtering devices to achieve better precision. Topical relevance, the primary factor in the initial retrieval operation, extends far beyond topic matching, as often assumed. Empirical studies demonstrate that topical relevance relationships are drawn from a broad but systematic inventory of semantic relationships.

0.03785761 = product of:
  0.094644025 = sum of:
    0.032756116 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032756116 = score(doc=5159,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 5159, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5159)
    0.06188791 = weight(_text_:semantic in 5159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06188791 = score(doc=5159,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.32156807 = fieldWeight in 5159, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5159)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Various shortcomings typically attend thesaural relationships: failure to support extended relevance relationships; lack of effort in identifying a common relational inventory across types of retrieval systems; limitation to binary relationships; inattention to relationships built into the meaning of lexical units. To counteract this failings, a preliminary inventory of relational structures underlying the ca. 1250 most frequently occuring English verbs is presented. The inventory is compact and corresponds to a combination of semantic role-based verb types as identified by Chafe (1970), and image schemata, as identified by Johnson (1987). The nature of hierarchical relationships among relational structures within the inventory is surveyed

0.032449383 = product of:
  0.08112346 = sum of:
    0.028076671 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028076671 = score(doc=7712,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 7712, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7712)
    0.05304678 = weight(_text_:semantic in 7712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05304678 = score(doc=7712,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.2756298 = fieldWeight in 7712, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7712)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Reports results of a study, conducted by Maryland University, College of Library and Information Services, to establish the basic logical design of large scale bibliographic databases using the entity relationship (ER) model, with a view to the eventual conversion of the ER based conceptual schemas into relational databases. A fully normalized relational bibliographic database promises relief from the update, insertion, and deletion anomalies that plague bibliographic databases using MARC formats and USMARC formats internally. Presents the conceptual design of a full scale bibliographic database (inclusing bibliographic, authority, holdings, and classification data), based on entity relationship modelling. This design translates easily into a logical relational design. Discusses the treatment of format integration and the differentiation between the intellectual and bibliographic levels of description and between collective and individual levels of description. Unfortunately, the complexities of bibliographic data result in a tension between the semantic integrity of the relatioal approach and the inefficiencies of normalization and decomposition. Outlines compromise approaches to the dilemma

0.030453254 = product of:
  0.07613313 = sum of:
    0.062516235 = weight(_text_:semantic in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062516235 = score(doc=4823,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.32483283 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
    0.013616893 = product of:
      0.027233787 = sum of:
        0.027233787 = weight(_text_:web in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027233787 = score(doc=4823,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

As part of a larger assessment of relationships in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system, this study investigates the semantic nature of relationships in the DDC notational hierarchy. The semantic relationship between each of a set of randomly selected classes and its parent class in the notational hierarchy is examined against a set of relationship types (specialization, class-instance, several flavours of whole-part).The analysis addresses the prevalence of specific relationship types, their lexical expression, difficulties encountered in assigning relationship types, compatibility of relationships found in the DDC with those found in other knowledge organization systems (KOS), and compatibility of relationships found in the DDC with those in a shared formalism like the Web Ontology Language (OWL). Since notational hierarchy is an organizational mechanism shared across most classification schemes and is often considered to provide an easy solution for ontological transformation of a classification system, the findings of the study are likely to generalize across classification schemes with respect to difficulties that might be encountered in such a transformation process.

0.023953566 = product of:
  0.059883915 = sum of:
    0.04420565 = weight(_text_:semantic in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04420565 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.22969149 = fieldWeight in 2282, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2282)
    0.015678266 = product of:
      0.031356532 = sum of:
        0.031356532 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031356532 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The structure of a classification system contributes in a variety of ways to representing semantic relationships between its topics in the context of subject authority control. We explore this claim using the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system as a case study. The DDC links its classes into a notational hierarchy, supplemented by a network of relationships between topics, expressed in class descriptions and in the Relative Index (RI). Topics/subjects are expressed both by the natural language text of the caption and notes (including Manual notes) in a class description and by the controlled vocabulary of the RI's alphabetic index, which shows where topics are treated in the classificatory structure. The expression of relationships between topics depends on paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships between natural language terms in captions, notes, and RI terms; on the meaning of specific note types; and on references recorded between RI terms. The specific means used in the DDC for capturing hierarchical (including disciplinary), equivalence and associative relationships are surveyed.

Date

8.11.2015 21:27:22

0.021656258 = product of:
  0.10828129 = sum of:
    0.10828129 = weight(_text_:semantic in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10828129 = score(doc=3849,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.56262696 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.

0.021438602 = product of:
  0.10719301 = sum of:
    0.10719301 = weight(_text_:semantic in 110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10719301 = score(doc=110,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.55697227 = fieldWeight in 110, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=110)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Preliminary attempts to identify semantic frames and their internal structure automatically have met with a degree of success. In a first stage, clustering is used to detect 4 previously identified semantic frames (COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION, HIT, JUDGING, RISK) from verb definitions in Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English. In a second stage, nouns used in the definitions of frame-invoking verbs or in whose definitions the frame-invoking verbs occur in certain forms are searched in WordNet to identify frame elements. Suggestions for refinement of the processes are discussed

0.021218713 = product of:
  0.10609356 = sum of:
    0.10609356 = weight(_text_:semantic in 236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10609356 = score(doc=236,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.5512596 = fieldWeight in 236, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=236)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Semantic types provide a level of abstraction over particulars with shared behavior, such as in the participant structure of semantic frames. The paper presents a preliminary investigation, drawing on data from WordNet and FrameNet, into the relationship between hierarchical level and the semantic types that name frame elements (a.k.a. slots). Patterns discovered include: (1) The level of abstraction of a frame is generally matched by the level of abstraction of its frame elements. (2) The roles played by persons tend to be expressed very specifically. (3) Frame elements that mirror the name of the frame tend to be expressed specifically. (4) Some frame participants tend to be expressed at a constant (general) level of abstraction, regardless of the level of abstraction of the overall frame.

0.020005194 = product of:
  0.100025974 = sum of:
    0.100025974 = weight(_text_:semantic in 2621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100025974 = score(doc=2621,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.51973253 = fieldWeight in 2621, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2621)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Although less well studied than noun polysemy, verb polysemy affects both natural language and controlled vocabulary searching. This paper reports the preliminary conclusions of an empirical investigation of the semantic relationships between ca. 600 verb sense pairs in English, illustrating six classes of semantic relationships that account for a significant proportion of verbal polysemy.

0.017504547 = product of:
  0.08752273 = sum of:
    0.08752273 = weight(_text_:semantic in 2135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08752273 = score(doc=2135,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.45476598 = fieldWeight in 2135, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2135)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Relationships that interconnect entity classes of import to knowledge organization (knowledge, documents, concepts, beings, information needs, language) include both non-subject bibliographic relationships (document-to-document relationships, responsibility relationships) and conceptual content relationships (subject relationships, relevance relationships). While the MARC format allows the recording of most bibliographic relationships, many of them are not expressed systematically. Conceptual content relationships include, in turn, interconcept and intraconcept relationships. The expression of interconcept relationships is covered by standard thesaural relationships, which typically do not distinguish fully between the underlying lexical relationship types. The full expression of complex intraconcept relationships includes indication of the basic nature of the relationship (including a set of semantic roles), the set of entities that participate in the relationship, and a mapping between participants and semantic roles. Knowledge organization schemes seldom express these relationships fully.

0.015003897 = product of:
  0.075019486 = sum of:
    0.075019486 = weight(_text_:semantic in 2629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075019486 = score(doc=2629,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.38979942 = fieldWeight in 2629, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2629)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Within the overall conference theme-integration of knowledge across boundaries-an important subtheme is universality: Where universals of knowledge organization and representation exist, knowledge integration is more likely. Thus, knowledge of conceptual universals should inform efforts at knowledge integration. In this paper, natural language is used as a model for exploring conceptual universals, since the phenomenon of translating between languages validates, but also circumscribes, the existence of semantic and lexical universals. The paper explores a representative inventory of semantic and lexical universals that should be accounted for in knowledge organization and representation systems, especially those that aim to be comprehensive.

0.012377582 = product of:
  0.06188791 = sum of:
    0.06188791 = weight(_text_:semantic in 1142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06188791 = score(doc=1142,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.32156807 = fieldWeight in 1142, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1142)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Relationships are specified by simultaneously identifying a semantic relationship and the set of participants involved in it, pairing each participant with its role in the relationship. Properties pertaining to the participant set and the nature of the relationship are explored. Relationships in the organization of knowledge are surveyed, encompassing relationships between units of recorded knowledge based an descriptions of those units; intratextual and intertextual relationships, including relationships based an text structure, citation relationships, and hypertext links; subject relationships in thesauri and other classificatory structures, including relationships for literature-based knowledge discovery; and relevance relationships.

0.010588376 = product of:
  0.052941877 = sum of:
    0.052941877 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052941877 = score(doc=3960,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 3960, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3960)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Subject retrieval in a networked environment: Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting held in Dublin, OH, 14-16 August 2001 and sponsored by the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section, the IFLA Information Technology Section and OCLC. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.0065512233 = product of:
  0.032756116 = sum of:
    0.032756116 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032756116 = score(doc=3685,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 3685, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3685)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The significant differences that exist between the print and digital worlds are sometimes felt to diminish the need for bibliographic description in the electronic world. An analysis of these differences, especially with respect to (1) the control of production and distribution of documents and (2) the need for software intermediation, coupled with a discussion of the functions of bibliographic description in the task of document retrieval argue, however, for an increased role for bibliographic description in the electronic world

0.0065512233 = product of:
  0.032756116 = sum of:
    0.032756116 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032756116 = score(doc=4475,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 4475, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4475)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The expression of conceptual syntagmatic relationships in document retrieval systems holds out hope for both increased discrimination generally and increased recall in certain contexts. Such relationships require both a structured inventory of relationships. Examines the means of expressing these. The expression of conceptual syntagmatic relationships must comply with criteria of systematicity, complexity, efficiency and naturalness. Unfortunately, the complex interaction of natural language expression based on lexicalization, word order, function words, and morphosyntactic cases causes failure regarding systematicity. Most methods of expressing conceptual syntagmatic relationships, e.g. term co occurrence techniques, links and role indicators, fail to comply with this and other of the criteria. Only gestalt structures simultaneously representing relationships, participants and roles conform fully to the critical checklist

0.0065512233 = product of:
  0.032756116 = sum of:
    0.032756116 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032756116 = score(doc=4615,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 4615, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4615)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.0056153345 = product of:
  0.028076671 = sum of:
    0.028076671 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028076671 = score(doc=2724,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2724, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2724)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study establishes 3 predominant cognitive models of information and the information transfer process manifest in the literature of library and information science, based on a linguistic analysis of phrases incoporating the word 'information' from a random sample of abstracts in the LISA database. The direct communication (DC) and indirect communication (IC) models (drawn from Reddy's frameworks of metalinguistic usage) adopt the perspective of the information system; the information-seeking (IS) model takes the viewpoint of the information user. 2 disturbing findings are presented: 1. core elements of the DC and IC models are more weakly supported by the data than are most of the peripheral elements; and 2. even though the IS model presents the information user's perspective, the data emphasise the role of the information system. These findings suggest respectively that the field lacks a coherent model of information transfer per se and that our model of information retrieval is mechanistic, oblivious to the cognitive models of end users

0.0056153345 = product of:
  0.028076671 = sum of:
    0.028076671 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028076671 = score(doc=474,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 474, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=474)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The paper is divided into 3 parts. The 1st develops a framework for evaluating the indexing needs of the humanities with reference to 4 sets of contrasts: user (need)-oriented vs. document-oriented indexing; subject indexing vs. attribute indexing; scientific writing vs. humanistic writing; and topical relevance vs. logical relevance vs. evidential relevance vs. aesthetic relevance. The indexing needs for the humanities range broadly across these contrasts. The 2nd part establishes the centrality of relationships to the communication of indexable matter and examines the advantages and disadvantages of means used for their expression inboth natural languages and indexing languages. The use of relational structure, such as a frame, is shown to represent perhaps the best available option. The 3rd part illustrates where the use of relational structures in humanities indexing would help meet some of the needs previously identified. Although not a panacea, the adoption of frame-based indexing in the humanities might substantially improve the retrieval of its literature