Search (69 results, page 1 of 4)

0.038200855 = product of:
  0.09550214 = sum of:
    0.08309533 = weight(_text_:relation in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08309533 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.40466496 = fieldWeight in 5006, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5006)
    0.012406815 = product of:
      0.037220445 = sum of:
        0.037220445 = weight(_text_:22 in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037220445 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13743061 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5006, 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=5006)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The purpose of this selected bibliography is to introduce issues and problems in relation to thesaurus construction and to present a set of readings that may be used in practical thesaurus design. The concept of thesaurus is discussed, the purpose of the thesaurus and how the concept has evolved over the years according to new IR technologies. Different approaches to thesaurus construction are introduced, and readings dealing with specific problems and developments in the collection, formation and organisation of thesaurus concepts and terms are presented. Primarily manual construction methods are discussed, but the bibliography also refers to research about techniques for automatic thesaurus construction.

Date

18. 5.2006 20:06:22

0.03798644 = product of:
  0.18993218 = sum of:
    0.18993218 = weight(_text_:relation in 1359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18993218 = score(doc=1359,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.9249485 = fieldWeight in 1359, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1359)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.03323813 = product of:
  0.16619065 = sum of:
    0.16619065 = weight(_text_:relation in 39) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16619065 = score(doc=39,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.8093299 = fieldWeight in 39, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=39)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.020560762 = product of:
  0.10280381 = sum of:
    0.10280381 = weight(_text_:relation in 5854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10280381 = score(doc=5854,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.5006431 = fieldWeight in 5854, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5854)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The quantitative evaluation of thesauri has been carried out much further since 1976. This type of evaluation is based on counting of special factors in thesaurus structure, some of which are counting preferred terms, non preferred terms, cross reference terms and so on. Therefore, various statistical tests have been proposed and applied for evaluation of thesauri. In this article, we try to explain some ratios in the field of unity quantitative evaluation in a thesaurus term network. Theoretical base of the ratios' indicators and indices construction, and epistemological thought in this type of quantitative evaluation, are discussed in this article. The theoretical base of quantitative evaluation is the epistemological thought of Immanuel Kant's Critique of pure reason. The cognition states of transcendental understanding are divided into three steps, the first is perception, the second combination and the third, relation making. Terms relation domains and conceptual relation domains can be analyzed with ratios. The use of quantitative evaluations in current research in the field of thesaurus construction prepares a basis for a restoration period. In modern thesaurus construction, traditional term relations are analyzed in detail in the form of new conceptual relations. Hence, the new domains of hierarchical and associative relations are constructed in the form of relations between concepts. The newly formed conceptual domains can be a suitable basis for quantitative evaluation analysis in conceptual relations.

0.02014535 = product of:
  0.100726746 = sum of:
    0.100726746 = weight(_text_:relation in 145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100726746 = score(doc=145,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.49052802 = fieldWeight in 145, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=145)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

For more than thirty years thesauri have been valuable tools in information retrieval. Originally, the basic function of the thesauri was to help the indexer to transform concepts and their relationships, as expressed in the language of documents, into the more regularised indexing language of catalogues and databases. In the nineties another important purpose of the thesauri is to guide the searcher to the best search terms. In spite of the new role, the design of the thesauri has remained more or less stable. This paper explores the demands which are put on the thesauri in relation to searching. Findings are presented in the form of generalisations and moreover illustrated in relation to a real-life situation. Suggestions for improved functionality are presented in the form of a prototype of a thesaurus record. The new role as a conceptual searching tool is also influencing the construction process. Therefore, the paper ends up with a discussion of new methods for thesaurus construction

0.01899322 = product of:
  0.09496609 = sum of:
    0.09496609 = weight(_text_:relation in 317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09496609 = score(doc=317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.46247426 = fieldWeight in 317, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=317)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In this demonstration we present a visual analysis approach that addresses both developers and users of hierarchical classification systems. The approach supports an intuitive understanding of the structure and current use in relation to a specific collection. We will also demonstrate its application for the development and management of library collections.

0.016619066 = product of:
  0.08309533 = sum of:
    0.08309533 = weight(_text_:relation in 7330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08309533 = score(doc=7330,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.40466496 = fieldWeight in 7330, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7330)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Examines how far automation cluster analysis and association testing are relevant methods for smaller libraries in construction of search thesauri. Using WORDSTAR, a simple form of cluster analysis was tested, with satisfactory results in that the index terms formed clusters of a suitable size. The association test was used to elicit from users' natural language terms which can be used in the search thesaurus as entrance vocabulary. The test showed that users associated very differently in relation to the same stimuli words, with low overlap with terms used in the system's indexing. The results confirmed the need for better feedback. Concludes that while neither method can be used alone, a search thesauri which combine terms from the indexes and from users can be a powerful tool

0.014244914 = product of:
  0.07122457 = sum of:
    0.07122457 = weight(_text_:relation in 1147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07122457 = score(doc=1147,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.3468557 = fieldWeight in 1147, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1147)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Because the multilingual thesaurus has a critical role to play in the global networked information world, its relational structure must come under close scrutiny. Traditionally, identity of relational structures has been sought for the different language versions of a multilingual thesaurus, often leading to the artificialization of all target languages. The various types of cross-lingual and intralingual relations found in thesauri are examined in the context of two questions: Are all types of thesaural relations transferable from one language to another? and Are the two members of a valid relation in a source language always the same in the target language(s)? Two options for resolving semantic conflicts in multilingual thesauri are presented.

0.014244914 = product of:
  0.07122457 = sum of:
    0.07122457 = weight(_text_:relation in 2732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07122457 = score(doc=2732,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.3468557 = fieldWeight in 2732, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2732)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper evaluates and compares three thesaurus construction methodologies: literary scanning, word association tests, and involvement of subject expert groups. The evaluation concentrates an exploring advantages in relation to the sub-processes: collection, formation and structuring of concepts and terms. Quantitative as well as qualitative analyses have been carried out. The analysis Shows that the methods are complementary each providing distinct conceptual information from respectively a domain-oriented and a scientific viewpoint. The combination of methods provides a thesaurus, at the same time, mapping authoritative language and reflecting the diversity of language.

0.014244914 = product of:
  0.07122457 = sum of:
    0.07122457 = weight(_text_:relation in 4423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07122457 = score(doc=4423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.3468557 = fieldWeight in 4423, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4423)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The paper introduces bibliometrics to the research area of knowledge organization - more precisely in relation to construction and maintenance of thesauri. As such, the paper reviews related work that has been of inspiration for the assembly of a semi-automatic, bibliometric-based, approach for construction and maintenance. Similarly, the paper discusses the methodical considerations behind the approach. Eventually, the semi-automatic approach is used to verify the applicability of bibliometric methods as a supplement to construction and maintenance of thesauri. In the context of knowledge organization, the paper outlines two fundamental approaches to knowledge organization, that is, the manual intellectual approach and the automatic algorithmic approach. Bibliometric methods belong to the automatic algorithmic approach, though bibliometrics do have special characteristics that are substantially different from other methods within this approach.

0.0099705 = product of:
  0.0498525 = sum of:
    0.0498525 = product of:
      0.07477875 = sum of:
        0.037558302 = weight(_text_:29 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037558302 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13805294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
        0.037220445 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037220445 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13743061 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

2. 3.2013 12:29:05

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.008309533 = product of:
  0.041547664 = sum of:
    0.041547664 = weight(_text_:relation in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041547664 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.20233248 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The paper analysed here is a kind of position paper. In order to get a better under-standing of the reported work I used the retrieval interface of the thesaurus, the so-called NCI DTS Browser accessible via the Web3, and I perused the cited OWL file4 with numerous "Find" and "Find next" string searches. In addition the file was im-ported into Protégé 2000, Release 2.0, with OWL Plugin 1.0 and Racer Plugin 1.7.14. At the end of the paper's introduction the authors say: "In the following sections, this paper will describe the terminology development process at NCI, and the issues associated with converting a description logic based nomenclature to a semantically rich OWL ontology." While I will not deal with the first part, i.e. the terminology development process at NCI, I do not see the thesaurus as a description logic based nomenclature, or its cur-rent state and conversion already result in a "rich" OWL ontology. What does "rich" mean here? According to my view there is a great quantity of concepts and links but a very poor description logic structure which enables inferences. And what does the fol-lowing really mean, which is said a few lines previously: "Although editors have defined a number of named ontologic relations to support the description-logic based structure of the Thesaurus, additional relation-ships are considered for inclusion as required to support dependent applications."

0.007122457 = product of:
  0.035612285 = sum of:
    0.035612285 = weight(_text_:relation in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035612285 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.17342785 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

"Thesaurus" definitions taken from the information science literature "A thesaurus is a controlled vocabulary arranged in a known order and structured so that equivalence, homographic, hierarchical, and associative relationships among terms are displayed clearly and identified by standardized relationship indicators that are employed reciprocally." (ANSI/NISO Z39-19-1993) "Thesaurus is a specialized, normalized, postcoordinate language used for documentaries means, where the linguistic elements that composes it - single or composed terms - are related among themselves syntactically and semantically." (Translated into English by the authors from the original in Portuguese: Currás 1995, 88.) "[...] an authority file, which can lead the user from one concept to another via various heuristic or intuitive paths." (Howerton 1965 apud Gilchrist 1971, 5) " [...] is a lexical authority list, without notation, which differs from an alphabetical subject heading list in that the lexical units, being smaller, are more amenable to post-coordinate indexing." (Gilchrist 1971,2) [...] "a dynamic controlled vocabulary of terms related semantically and by generic relation covering a specific knowledge domain." (Translated into English by the authors from the original in Portuguese: UNESCO 1973, 6.) [...] "a terminological control device used in the translation of the natural language of the documents, from the indexers or from the users in a more restricted system language (documentation language, information language)." (Translated into English by the authors from the original in Portuguese: UNESCO 1973,6.)

0.0050077736 = product of:
  0.025038868 = sum of:
    0.025038868 = product of:
      0.075116605 = sum of:
        0.075116605 = weight(_text_:29 in 4713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.075116605 = score(doc=4713,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13805294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 4713, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4713)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.3, S.345-358

0.004962726 = product of:
  0.02481363 = sum of:
    0.02481363 = product of:
      0.07444089 = sum of:
        0.07444089 = weight(_text_:22 in 4199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07444089 = score(doc=4199,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13743061 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4199, 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=4199)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Mitteilungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Parlaments- und Behördenbibliotheken. 1989, H.67, S.1-22

0.0042923777 = product of:
  0.021461887 = sum of:
    0.021461887 = product of:
      0.06438566 = sum of:
        0.06438566 = weight(_text_:29 in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06438566 = score(doc=3807,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13805294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

18. 5.2002 17:29:00

0.004253765 = product of:
  0.021268826 = sum of:
    0.021268826 = product of:
      0.063806474 = sum of:
        0.063806474 = weight(_text_:22 in 4483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063806474 = score(doc=4483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13743061 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4483)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

15. 3.2000 10:22:37

0.004253765 = product of:
  0.021268826 = sum of:
    0.021268826 = product of:
      0.063806474 = sum of:
        0.063806474 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063806474 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13743061 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.004253765 = product of:
  0.021268826 = sum of:
    0.021268826 = product of:
      0.063806474 = sum of:
        0.063806474 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063806474 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13743061 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.004253765 = product of:
  0.021268826 = sum of:
    0.021268826 = product of:
      0.063806474 = sum of:
        0.063806474 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063806474 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13743061 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

24. 8.2005 19:20:22