Search (2332 results, page 117 of 117)

7.6892605E-4 = product of:
  0.0069203344 = sum of:
    0.0069203344 = product of:
      0.013840669 = sum of:
        0.013840669 = weight(_text_:web in 285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013840669 = score(doc=285,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 285, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=285)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The Household Information Systems (HIS) project in Queen Margaret College was funded to explore the use of new media in a group of Edinburgh households (Davenport & Higgins, 1995). One of the motivations of the HIS 'programme' was to find a suitable theoretical and/or exploratory framework, which takes account of multiple aspects of behaviour surrounding technologies, and thus avoids assumptions about their role in information-seeking or other isolated activities. A focus on single activities would occlude knowledge of other motivations: bonding, killing time, defining boundaries. In Phase One, `information management' rather than `information seeking' was used as a conceptual framework, embracing work on the `life cycle' of ICTs as illustrated by Kopytoffs `biography of things' approach (1986), Johnson's cultural circuit (1986), research on households as micro-organisations by McCrone and his colleagues (1994), and work by Silverstone and others on ICTs in the home as tools for internal and external adaptation (Silverstone, 1994, Silverstone et al 1994). The `management' framework has been productive - Phase One allowed us to identify patterns of ICT acquisition and deployment in the home, and, more interestingly, structures of appropriation which reflect rules, roles and responsibilities in individual households. These constitute what may be called a `reproduction lattice' (adapting terminology used by Kling (1987) in his analysis of the `web of computing' in organisations), a structure which captures the political and cultural economy of a household. Phase One's findings are consistent with those of other researchers working in the area of domestic consumption of ICTs but a major limitation of the work is the homogeneous nature of the respondents. Among our Edinburgh 'household managers', internal culture was a more compelling explanation for use than technical functionality.

7.6892605E-4 = product of:
  0.0069203344 = sum of:
    0.0069203344 = product of:
      0.013840669 = sum of:
        0.013840669 = weight(_text_:web in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013840669 = score(doc=2596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Content

Ramana Rao (Inxight, Palo Alto, CA) 7 ± 2 Insights on achieving Effective Information Access Session One: Updates and a twelve month perspective Danny Sullivan (Search Engine Watch, US / England) Portalization and other search trends Carol Tenopir (University of Tennessee) Search realities faced by end users and professional searchers Session Two: Today's search engines and beyond Daniel Hoogterp (Retrieval Technologies, McLean, VA) Effective presentation and utilization of search techniques Rick Kenny (Fulcrum Technologies, Ontario, Canada) Beyond document clustering: The knowledge impact statement Gary Stock (Ingenius, Kalamazoo, MI) Automated change monitoring Gary Culliss (Direct Hit, Wellesley Hills, MA) User popularity ranked search engines Byron Dom (IBM, CA) Automatically finding the best pages on the World Wide Web (CLEVER) Peter Tomassi (LookSmart, San Francisco, CA) Adding human intellect to search technology Session Three: Panel discussion: Human v automated categorization and editing Ev Brenner (New York, NY)- Chairman James Callan (University of Massachusetts, MA) Marc Krellenstein (Northern Light Technology, Cambridge, MA) Dan Miller (Ask Jeeves, Berkeley, CA) Session Four: Updates and a twelve month perspective Steve Arnold (AIT, Harrods Creek, KY) Review: The leading edge in search and retrieval software Ellen Voorhees (NIST, Gaithersburg, MD) TREC update Session Five: Search engines now and beyond Intelligent Agents John Snyder (Muscat, Cambridge, England) Practical issues behind intelligent agents Text summarization Therese Firmin, (Dept of Defense, Ft George G. Meade, MD) The TIPSTER/SUMMAC evaluation of automatic text summarization systems Cross language searching Elizabeth Liddy (TextWise, Syracuse, NY) A conceptual interlingua approach to cross-language retrieval. Video search and retrieval Armon Amir (IBM, Almaden, CA) CueVideo: Modular system for automatic indexing and browsing of video/audio Speech recognition Michael Witbrock (Lycos, Waltham, MA) Retrieval of spoken documents Visualization James A. Wise (Integral Visuals, Richland, WA) Information visualization in the new millennium: Emerging science or passing fashion? Text mining David Evans (Claritech, Pittsburgh, PA) Text mining - towards decision support

7.6892605E-4 = product of:
  0.0069203344 = sum of:
    0.0069203344 = product of:
      0.013840669 = sum of:
        0.013840669 = weight(_text_:web in 3315) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013840669 = score(doc=3315,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 3315, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3315)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Der Wissensnavigator ist ein Lexikon der Zukunft auf dem Weg zu einer interaktiven Enzyklopädie. Wenn Sie die elektronische Fassung online benutzen, können Sie von den einzelnen Artikeln über Hyperlinks zu Seiten im World Wide Web gelangen, die noch mehr Informationen zum jeweiligen Zukunftsbegriff enthalten. Bei der elektronischen Ausgabe des Wissensnavigators, die auch im Internet zugänglich ist handelt es sich um eine "lebende" Anwendung, die sich gerade auch durch die Mitwirkung der Nutzer weiterentwickelt. Sie sind herzlich eingeladen, zum Teilnehmer dieses Evolutionsprozesses zu werden - etwa, indem Sie neue Begriffe vorschlagen, die aufgenommen werden sollen, oder Experten benennen, die zur Bearbeitung neuer Begriffe in Frage kommen, oder auch sich selbst als Experte zu erkennen geben. Eine Redaktion, die aus dem Autor und einem Expertenteam im Verlag besteht, wird über die Aufnahme neuer Begriffe entscheiden

7.6892605E-4 = product of:
  0.0069203344 = sum of:
    0.0069203344 = product of:
      0.013840669 = sum of:
        0.013840669 = weight(_text_:web in 1245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013840669 = score(doc=1245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 1245, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Over the past few months the International DOI Foundation (IDF) has produced a number of discussion papers and other materials about the Digital Object Identifier (DOIsm) initiative. They are all available at the DOI web site, including a brief summary of the DOI origins and purpose. The aim of the present paper is to update those papers, reflecting recent progress, and to provide a summary of the current position and context of the DOI. Although much of the material presented here is the result of a consensus by the organisations forming the International DOI Foundation, some of the points discuss work in progress. The paper describes the origin of the DOI as a persistent identifier for managing copyrighted materials and its development under the non-profit International DOI Foundation into a system providing identifiers of intellectual property with a framework for open applications to be built using them. Persistent identification implementations consistent with URN specifications have up to now been hindered by lack of widespread availability of resolution mechanisms, content typology consensus, and sufficiently flexible infrastructure; DOI attempts to overcome these obstacles. Resolution of the DOI uses the Handle System®, which offers the necessary functionality for open applications. The aim of the International DOI Foundation is to promote widespread applications of the DOI, which it is doing by pioneering some early implementations and by providing an extensible framework to ensure interoperability of future DOI uses. Applications of the DOI will require an interoperable scheme of declared metadata with each DOI; the basis of the DOI metadata scheme is a minimal "kernel" of elements supplemented by additional application-specific elements, under an umbrella data model (derived from the INDECS analysis) that promotes convergence of different application metadata sets. The IDF intends to require declaration of only a minimal set of metadata, sufficient to enable unambiguous look-up of a DOI, but this must be capable of extension by others to create open applications.

6.7964103E-4 = product of:
  0.0061167693 = sum of:
    0.0061167693 = product of:
      0.012233539 = sum of:
        0.012233539 = weight(_text_:web in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012233539 = score(doc=839,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.12748088 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Since 1988, two issues of Library Trends have been devoted to various aspects of image and multimedia information retrieval. In each issue, the editors call for a synergy across the disciplines that develop image retrieval systems and those that utilize these systems. Stam and Giral, in the 1988 issue of Library Trends titled "Linking Art Objects and Art Information," emphasize the need for a thorough understanding of the visual information-seeking behaviors of image database users. Writing in a 1990 issue of Library Trends devoted to graphical information retrieval, Mark Rorvig takes up the fundamental issue that "what can be listed cannot always be found" and uses that statement as a framework for examining progress in intellectual access to visual information. In the ensuing decade, several critical events have unfolded that have brought about some of the needed collaboration across disciplines and have enhanced the potential for advancements in the area of visual information retrieval. First, the field of computer vision has grown exponentially within the past decade, producing tools that enable the retrieval of visual information, especially for objects with no accompanying structural, administrative, or descriptive text information. Second, the Internet, more specifically the Web, has become a common channel for the transmission of graphical information, thus moving visual information retrieval rapidly from stand-alone workstations and databases into a networked environment. Third, the use of the Web to provide access to the search and retrieval mechanisms for visual and other forms of information has spawned the development of emerging standards for metadata about these objects as well as the creation of commonly employed methods to achieve interoperability across the searching of visual, textual, and other multimedia repositories. Practicality has begun to dictate that the indexing of huge collections of images by hand is a task that is both labor intensive and expensive-in many cases more than can be afforded to provide some method of intellectual access to digital image collections. In the world of text retrieval, text "speaks for itself" whereas image analysis requires a combination of high-level concept creation as well as the processing and interpretation of inherent visual features. In the area of intellectual access to visual information, the interplay between human and machine image indexing methods has begun to influence the development of visual information retrieval systems. Research and application by the visual information retrieval (VIR) community suggests that the most fruitful approaches to VIR involve analysis of the type of information being sought, the domain in which it will be used, and systematic testing to identify optimal retrieval methods.

6.728103E-4 = product of:
  0.0060552927 = sum of:
    0.0060552927 = product of:
      0.012110585 = sum of:
        0.012110585 = weight(_text_:web in 3123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012110585 = score(doc=3123,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 3123, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3123)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: SCHMAUKS, D.: Schweigende Texte, sprechende Bilder; RAHMSTORF, G.: Visualisierung: Vom Begriff zum Bild; SCHANTZ, R.: Sinnliche versus begriffliche Repräsentation; SCHUMACHER, R.: Über die anwendungsbedingungen des Bildbegriffs; SCHOLZ, M.: Abstraktion und Naturalismus in der Praxis der digitalen Bildherstellung; BERENDT, B.: Spatial thinking with geographic maps: an empirical study; OHLY, H.P.: Strukturierung sozialwissenschaftlicher Informationsressourcen im Internet: Wissensorganisatorische Aspekte beim aufbau eines Clearinghouses; OEHLER, A.: Analyse von Suchdiensten im Internet: Kriterien und Probleme; BATINIC, B.: Wie und für welche Aufgaben wird das Internet genutzt? Folgerungen für den Informationsaufbau und wissenschaftlichen Einsatz des Internet; FRIEDRICH, F. u.a.: Gruppengrösse, Nachrichtenmenge, Kohärenzprobleme und Informationsorganisation beim Lernen im Netz; VELTMAN, K.: Frontiers in conceptual navigation; LEHNER, C.: Hypertext und World Wide Web als Hilfen für einen Programmierkurs in Prolog; SCHOOP, E.: Strukturierung der betrieblichen Dokumentation als Grundbaustein für ein multimediales Wissensmanagement in der Unternehmung; OELTJEN, W.: Dokumentenstrukturen manipulieren und visualisieren: über das Arbeiten mit der logischen Struktur; PALME, J.: HTML / XML / SGML: Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede; SCHWARZ, I. u. W. UMSTÄTTER: Zum Prinzip der Objektdarstellung in SGML; DAHN, B.I.: Publikation mathematischer Texte im Internet; FLATSCHER, R.: Konzeption von Glossaren für HTML-Browser; GRESHOFF, R.: Theorienvielfalt in den Sozialwissenschaften und ihre begrifflichen Probleme; BIES, W.: Memoria und Wissensorganisation: Probleme einer (Wisses-)Kultur des Erinnerns; SCHÖNFELD, G.: Automatische versus manuelle Kapitalgliederung: dargestellt am Beispiel einer soziologischen Bibliographie; OTTO, A.: Ordnungssysteme als Wissensbasis für die Suche in textbasierten Datenbeständen; LORENZ, B.: Die Fachsystematik Technik der Regensburger Verbundklassifikation: ein Fallbeispiel für Optimierung; BAUER, G.: Visualisierung durch 'geordnete' Strukturbilder des Wissens (Anwendung des Pronzips der Facettenklassifikation); SCHILDMANN, G.: Unterstützung des Forschungsprozesses durch Visualisierung von Wissenstrukturen; JAENECKE, P.: Forschungsorientierte Wissenschaftstheorie; OHLY, P. u. A. SIGEL: Einführung in wissensorganisatorische Aspekte bei der Nutzung und Bereitstellung fachlicher Internet-Ressourcen

6.728103E-4 = product of:
  0.0060552927 = sum of:
    0.0060552927 = product of:
      0.012110585 = sum of:
        0.012110585 = weight(_text_:web in 5561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012110585 = score(doc=5561,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 5561, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5561)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Content

The 36th Allerton Institute, sponsored by the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Graduate School of Library and Information Science was held at the University of Illinois Conference Center near Monticello, Illinois on October 23-25, 1994. The theme centered around new roles for library classification in the electronic age. Representatives of six of the world's most used library classifications presented papers and demonstrations to show how traditional uses for shelf arrangement will be expanded to include uses on the Internet, World Wide Web, Library homepages and in other networks. Several of these papers will be included in this issue of Cataloging & Classification Quarterly: Joan S. Mitchell for Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), Ia Mcllwaine for the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), Eric Coates for both the Broad System of Ordering (BSO) and the Bliss Classification (BC). (Other issues of this journal will cover the National Library of Medicine and Library of Congress Classification.) An international trio of keynote addresses by Lois Chan, Ingetraut Dahlberg, and Pat Moholt faced the future and found several roles for library classification systems if they can match the growing need for organization of electronic resources. Several panels representing varying viewpoints was the vehicle for hearing from participants at the Allerton Conference. Some of these discussions were covered by student reporters and are included in this issue (Ann Marie Ziadie for the discussion of networks abroad; Shirley Lincicum for those discussing non-traditional uses of classification; and Brendan Wyly for those focusing on information networks). Janet Swan Hill's paper, included here, is representative of the panel of library administrators. The closing remarks by Marcia Bates and Sarah Thomas pointed to a dozen directional signals for those interested in a more meaningful role for library classification in the world of electronic information resources:

6.728103E-4 = product of:
  0.0060552927 = sum of:
    0.0060552927 = product of:
      0.012110585 = sum of:
        0.012110585 = weight(_text_:web in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012110585 = score(doc=1255,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

As digital libraries become a major source of information for many people, we need to know more about how people seek and retrieve information in digital environments. Quite commonly, users with a problem-at-hand and associated question-in-mind repeatedly search a literature for answers, and seek information in stages over extended periods from a variety of digital information resources. The process of repeatedly searching over time in relation to a specific, but possibly an evolving information problem (including changes or shifts in a variety of variables), is called the successive search phenomenon. The study outlined in this paper is currently investigating this new and little explored line of inquiry for information retrieval, Web searching, and digital libraries. The purpose of the research project is to investigate the nature, manifestations, and behavior of successive searching by users in digital environments, and to derive criteria for use in the design of information retrieval interfaces and systems supporting successive searching behavior. This study includes two related projects. The first project is based in the School of Library and Information Sciences at the University of North Texas and is funded by a National Science Foundation POWRE Grant <http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/show?award=9753277>. The second project is based at the Department of Information Studies at the University of Sheffield (UK) and is funded by a grant from the British Library <http://www.shef. ac.uk/~is/research/imrg/uncerty.html> Research and Innovation Center. The broad objectives of each project are to examine the nature and extent of successive search episodes in digital environments by real users over time. The specific aim of the current project is twofold: * To characterize progressive changes and shifts that occur in: user situational context; user information problem; uncertainty reduction; user cognitive styles; cognitive and affective states of the user, and consequently in their queries; and * To characterize related changes over time in the type and use of information resources and search strategies particularly related to given capabilities of IR systems, and IR search engines, and examine changes in users' relevance judgments and criteria, and characterize their differences. The study is an observational, longitudinal data collection in the U.S. and U.K. Three questionnaires are used to collect data: reference, client post search and searcher post search questionnaires. Each successive search episode with a search intermediary for textual materials on the DIALOG Information Service is audiotaped and search transaction logs are recorded. Quantitative analysis includes statistical analysis using Likert scale data from the questionnaires and log-linear analysis of sequential data. Qualitative methods include: content analysis, structuring taxonomies; and diagrams to describe shifts and transitions within and between each search episode. Outcomes of the study are the development of appropriate model(s) for IR interactions in successive search episodes and the derivation of a set of design criteria for interfaces and systems supporting successive searching.

6.728103E-4 = product of:
  0.0060552927 = sum of:
    0.0060552927 = product of:
      0.012110585 = sum of:
        0.012110585 = weight(_text_:web in 1257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012110585 = score(doc=1257,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 1257, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1257)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Over the past three years, the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative has achieved a broad international consensus on the semantics of a simple element set for describing electronic resources. Since the first workshop in March 1995, which was reported in the very first issue of D-Lib Magazine, Dublin Core has been the topic of perhaps a dozen articles here. Originally intended to be simple and intuitive enough for authors to tag Web pages without special training, Dublin Core is being adapted now for more specialized uses, from government information and legal deposit to museum informatics and electronic commerce. To meet such specialized requirements, Dublin Core can be customized with additional elements or qualifiers. However, these refinements can compromise interoperability across applications. There are tradeoffs between using specific terms that precisely meet local needs versus general terms that are understood more widely. We can better understand this inevitable tension between simplicity and complexity if we recognize that metadata is a form of human language. With Dublin Core, as with a natural language, people are inclined to stretch definitions, make general terms more specific, specific terms more general, misunderstand intended meanings, and coin new terms. One goal of this paper, therefore, will be to examine the experience of some related ways to seek semantic interoperability through simplicity: planned languages, interlingua constructs, and pidgins. The problem of semantic interoperability is compounded when we consider Dublin Core in translation. All of the workshops, documents, mailing lists, user guides, and working group outputs of the Dublin Core Initiative have been in English. But in many countries and for many applications, people need a metadata standard in their own language. In principle, the broad elements of Dublin Core can be defined equally well in Bulgarian or Hindi. Since Dublin Core is a controlled standard, however, any parallel definitions need to be kept in sync as the standard evolves. Another goal of the paper, then, will be to define the conceptual and organizational problem of maintaining a metadata standard in multiple languages. In addition to a name and definition, which are meant for human consumption, each Dublin Core element has a label, or indexing token, meant for harvesting by search engines. For practical reasons, these machine-readable tokens are English-looking strings such as Creator and Subject (just as HTML tags are called HEAD, BODY, or TITLE). These tokens, which are shared by Dublin Cores in every language, ensure that metadata fields created in any particular language are indexed together across repositories. As symbols of underlying universal semantics, these tokens form the basis of semantic interoperability among the multiple Dublin Cores. As long as we limit ourselves to sharing these indexing tokens among exact translations of a simple set of fifteen broad elements, the definitions of which fit easily onto two pages, the problem of Dublin Core in multiple languages is straightforward. But nothing having to do with human language is ever so simple. Just as speakers of various languages must learn the language of Dublin Core in their own tongues, we must find the right words to talk about a metadata language that is expressable in many discipline-specific jargons and natural languages and that inevitably will evolve and change over time.

5.766945E-4 = product of:
  0.0051902505 = sum of:
    0.0051902505 = product of:
      0.010380501 = sum of:
        0.010380501 = weight(_text_:web in 3085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010380501 = score(doc=3085,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.108171105 = fieldWeight in 3085, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3085)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Content

SCHMITZ-ESSER, W.: Defining the conceptual space for a world exhibition - first experiences; SOLOMON. P.: On the use of research categorizations as the basis for organizing knowledge: a test in the domain of information behavior in health care; BEAN, C.: The semantics of hierarchy: explicit parent-child relationships in MeSH tree structures; HUDON, M.: A preliminary investigation of the usefulness of semantic relations and of standardized definitions for the purpose of specifying meaning in a thesaurus; JOUIS, C.: System of types + inter-concept relations properties: towards validation of constructed terminologies; HETZLER, B. et al.: Visualizing the full spectrum of document relationships; GREEN, R.: Attribution and relationality; KOLMAYER, E. et al.: Conceptual maps: users navigation trough paradigmatic and syntagmatic links; NAKAMURA, Y.: Subdivisions vs. conjunctions: a discussion on concept theory; DAHLBERG, I.: Classification structure principles: investigations, experiences, conclusions; FROISSART, C. u. G. LALLICH-BOIDIN: Towards structuring of indexing vocabulary for large technical documents; MOUNIER, E. u. C. PAGANELLI: Text structure and information retrieval in large documents; LAROUK, O.: Modelling users need: schemas of interrogation and filtering of answers from the WEB in co-operative mode; VILADENC, I. u. O.DUPONT: Knowledge transfer in the field of telematics, in a didactic communicational context realized with hypermedia support; WILLIAMSON, N.: An interdisciplinary world and discipline based classification; BEGHTOL, C.: General classification systems: structural principles for multidisciplinary specification; McILWAINE, I.: Knowledge classifications, bibliographic classifications and the Internet;

4.805788E-4 = product of:
  0.004325209 = sum of:
    0.004325209 = product of:
      0.008650418 = sum of:
        0.008650418 = weight(_text_:web in 6299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008650418 = score(doc=6299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.09014259 = fieldWeight in 6299, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=6299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Footnote

Rez. in: Machine translation review: 1999, no.10, S.26-27 (D. Lewis): "Cross Language Information Retrieval (CLIR) addresses the growing need to access large volumes of data across language boundaries. The typical requirement is for the user to input a free form query, usually a brief description of a topic, into a search or retrieval engine which returns a list, in ranked order, of documents or web pages that are relevant to the topic. The search engine matches the terms in the query to indexed terms, usually keywords previously derived from the target documents. Unlike monolingual information retrieval, CLIR requires query terms in one language to be matched to indexed terms in another. Matching can be done by bilingual dictionary lookup, full machine translation, or by applying statistical methods. A query's success is measured in terms of recall (how many potentially relevant target documents are found) and precision (what proportion of documents found are relevant). Issues in CLIR are how to translate query terms into index terms, how to eliminate alternative translations (e.g. to decide that French 'traitement' in a query means 'treatment' and not 'salary'), and how to rank or weight translation alternatives that are retained (e.g. how to order the French terms 'aventure', 'business', 'affaire', and 'liaison' as relevant translations of English 'affair'). Grefenstette provides a lucid and useful overview of the field and the problems. The volume brings together a number of experiments and projects in CLIR. Mark Davies (New Mexico State University) describes Recuerdo, a Spanish retrieval engine which reduces translation ambiguities by scanning indexes for parallel texts; it also uses either a bilingual dictionary or direct equivalents from a parallel corpus in order to compare results for queries on parallel texts. Lisa Ballesteros and Bruce Croft (University of Massachusetts) use a 'local feedback' technique which automatically enhances a query by adding extra terms to it both before and after translation; such terms can be derived from documents known to be relevant to the query.

4.426644E-4 = product of:
  0.0039839796 = sum of:
    0.0039839796 = product of:
      0.007967959 = sum of:
        0.007967959 = weight(_text_:22 in 5580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007967959 = score(doc=5580,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 5580, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5580)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.90-97