Losee, R.M.; Haas, S.W.: Sublanguage terms : dictionaries, usage, and automatic classification (1995)
0.01
0.005054501 = product of:
0.035381503 = sum of:
0.011415146 = weight(_text_:information in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011415146 = score(doc=2650,freq=4.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023966359 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- The use of terms from natural and social science titles and abstracts is studied from the perspective of sublanguages and their specialized dictionaries. Explores different notions of sublanguage distinctiveness. Object methods for separating hard and soft sciences are suggested based on measures of sublanguage use, dictionary characteristics, and sublanguage distinctiveness. Abstracts were automatically classified with a high degree of accuracy by using a formula that condsiders the degree of uniqueness of terms in each sublanguage. This may prove useful for text filtering of information retrieval systems
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46(1995) no.7, S.519-529
Haas, S.W.; Losee, R.M.: Looking in text windows : their size and composition (1994)
0.00
0.0048545036 = product of:
0.033981524 = sum of:
0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 8525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00856136 = score(doc=8525,freq=4.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 8525, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8525)
0.025420163 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025420163 = score(doc=8525,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 8525, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8525)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- A text window is a group of words appearing in contiguous positions in text used to exploit a variety of lexical, syntactics, and semantic relationships without having to analyze the text explicitely for their structure. This supports the previously suggested idea that natural grouping of words are best treated as a unit of size 7 to 11 words, that is, plus or minus 3 to 5 words. The text retrieval experiments varying the size of windows, both with full text and with stopwords removed, support these size ranges. The characteristcs of windows that best match terms in queries are examined in detail, revealing intersting differences between those for queries with good results and those for queries with poorer results. Queries with good results tend to contain morte content word phrase and few terms with high frequency of use in the database. Information retrieval systems may benefit from expanding thesaurus-style relationships or incorporating statistical dependencies for terms within these windows
- Source
- Information processing and management. 30(1994) no.5, S.619-629
