-
Farradane, J.: Concept organization for information retrieval (1967)
0.01
0.0113271745 = product of:
0.07929022 = sum of:
0.019976506 = weight(_text_:information in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019976506 = score(doc=35,freq=4.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
0.05931371 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05931371 = score(doc=35,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.6617001 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Source
- Information storage and retrieval. 3(1967) S.297-314
-
Fox, E.A.: Lexical relations : enhancing effectiveness of information retrieval systems (1980)
0.01
0.009153739 = product of:
0.06407617 = sum of:
0.016143454 = weight(_text_:information in 5310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016143454 = score(doc=5310,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 5310, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5310)
0.047932718 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047932718 = score(doc=5310,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 5310, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5310)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
-
Fugmann, R.: ¬The analytico-synthetic foundation for large indexing & information retrieval systems : dedicated to Prof. Dr. Werner Schultheis, the vigorous initiator of modern chem. documentation in Germany on the occasion of his 85th birthday (1983)
0.01
0.008508556 = product of:
0.059559885 = sum of:
0.01804893 = weight(_text_:information in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01804893 = score(doc=215,freq=10.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.3469568 = fieldWeight in 215, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=215)
0.041510954 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041510954 = score(doc=215,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.46309367 = fieldWeight in 215, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=215)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- LCSH
- Information retrieval
- RSWK
- Information und Dokumentation / Systemgrundlage (BVB)
- Subject
- Information und Dokumentation / Systemgrundlage (BVB)
Information retrieval
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Thesaural relationships (2001)
0.01
0.008014596 = product of:
0.03740145 = sum of:
0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0070627616 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
0.020970564 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020970564 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
0.009368123 = product of:
0.028104367 = sum of:
0.028104367 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028104367 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- A thesaurus in the controlled vocabulary environment is a tool designed to support effective infonnation retrieval (IR) by guiding indexers and searchers consistently to choose the same terms for expressing a given concept or combination of concepts. Terms in the thesaurus are linked by relationships of three well-known types: equivalence, hierarchical, and associative. The functions and properties of these three basic types and some subcategories are described, as well as some additional relationship types conunonly found in thesauri. Progressive automation of IR processes and the capability for simultaneous searching of vast networked resources are creating some pressures for change in the categorization and consistency of relationships.
- Date
- 22. 9.2007 15:45:57
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.2
-
Kobrin, R.Y.: On the principles of terminological work in the creation of thesauri for information retrieval systems (1979)
0.01
0.008009522 = product of:
0.05606665 = sum of:
0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014125523 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
0.04194113 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04194113 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
-
Salton, G.: Experiments in automatic thesaurus construction for information retrieval (1972)
0.01
0.008009522 = product of:
0.05606665 = sum of:
0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 5314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014125523 = score(doc=5314,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 5314, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5314)
0.04194113 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04194113 = score(doc=5314,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 5314, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5314)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
-
Khoo, S.G.; Na, J.-C.: Semantic relations in information science (2006)
0.01
0.007728597 = product of:
0.036066785 = sum of:
0.010461091 = weight(_text_:web in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010461091 = score(doc=1978,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.108171105 = fieldWeight in 1978, 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=1978)
0.010039084 = weight(_text_:information in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010039084 = score(doc=1978,freq=22.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.19298252 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
0.015566608 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015566608 = score(doc=1978,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.17366013 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- This chapter examines the nature of semantic relations and their main applications in information science. The nature and types of semantic relations are discussed from the perspectives of linguistics and psychology. An overview of the semantic relations used in knowledge structures such as thesauri and ontologies is provided, as well as the main techniques used in the automatic extraction of semantic relations from text. The chapter then reviews the use of semantic relations in information extraction, information retrieval, question-answering, and automatic text summarization applications. Concepts and relations are the foundation of knowledge and thought. When we look at the world, we perceive not a mass of colors but objects to which we automatically assign category labels. Our perceptual system automatically segments the world into concepts and categories. Concepts are the building blocks of knowledge; relations act as the cement that links concepts into knowledge structures. We spend much of our lives identifying regular associations and relations between objects, events, and processes so that the world has an understandable structure and predictability. Our lives and work depend on the accuracy and richness of this knowledge structure and its web of relations. Relations are needed for reasoning and inferencing. Chaffin and Herrmann (1988b, p. 290) noted that "relations between ideas have long been viewed as basic to thought, language, comprehension, and memory." Aristotle's Metaphysics (Aristotle, 1961; McKeon, expounded on several types of relations. The majority of the 30 entries in a section of the Metaphysics known today as the Philosophical Lexicon referred to relations and attributes, including cause, part-whole, same and opposite, quality (i.e., attribute) and kind-of, and defined different types of each relation. Hume (1955) pointed out that there is a connection between successive ideas in our minds, even in our dreams, and that the introduction of an idea in our mind automatically recalls an associated idea. He argued that all the objects of human reasoning are divided into relations of ideas and matters of fact and that factual reasoning is founded on the cause-effect relation. His Treatise of Human Nature identified seven kinds of relations: resemblance, identity, relations of time and place, proportion in quantity or number, degrees in quality, contrariety, and causation. Mill (1974, pp. 989-1004) discoursed on several types of relations, claiming that all things are either feelings, substances, or attributes, and that attributes can be a quality (which belongs to one object) or a relation to other objects.
Linguists in the structuralist tradition (e.g., Lyons, 1977; Saussure, 1959) have asserted that concepts cannot be defined on their own but only in relation to other concepts. Semantic relations appear to reflect a logical structure in the fundamental nature of thought (Caplan & Herrmann, 1993). Green, Bean, and Myaeng (2002) noted that semantic relations play a critical role in how we represent knowledge psychologically, linguistically, and computationally, and that many systems of knowledge representation start with a basic distinction between entities and relations. Green (2001, p. 3) said that "relationships are involved as we combine simple entities to form more complex entities, as we compare entities, as we group entities, as one entity performs a process on another entity, and so forth. Indeed, many things that we might initially regard as basic and elemental are revealed upon further examination to involve internal structure, or in other words, internal relationships." Concepts and relations are often expressed in language and text. Language is used not just for communicating concepts and relations, but also for representing, storing, and reasoning with concepts and relations. We shall examine the nature of semantic relations from a linguistic and psychological perspective, with an emphasis on relations expressed in text. The usefulness of semantic relations in information science, especially in ontology construction, information extraction, information retrieval, question-answering, and text summarization is discussed. Research and development in information science have focused on concepts and terms, but the focus will increasingly shift to the identification, processing, and management of relations to achieve greater effectiveness and refinement in information science techniques. Previous chapters in ARIST on natural language processing (Chowdhury, 2003), text mining (Trybula, 1999), information retrieval and the philosophy of language (Blair, 2003), and query expansion (Efthimiadis, 1996) provide a background for this discussion, as semantic relations are an important part of these applications.
- Source
- Annual review of information science and technology. 40(2006), S.157-228
-
Evens, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval (2002)
0.01
0.0076756445 = product of:
0.053729508 = sum of:
0.013536699 = weight(_text_:information in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013536699 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
0.04019281 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04019281 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Thesaural relations have long been used in information retrieval to enrich queries; they have sometimes been used to cluster documents as well. Sometimes the first query to an information retrieval system yields no results at all, or, what can be even more disconcerting, many thousands of hits. One solution is to rephrase the query, improving the choice of query terms by using related terms of different types. A collection of related terms is often called a thesaurus. This chapter describes the lexical-semantic relations that have been used in building thesauri and summarizes some of the effects of using these relational thesauri in information retrieval experiments
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
- Theme
- Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
-
Miller, U.; Teitelbaum, R.: Pre-coordination and post-coordination : past and future (2002)
0.01
0.0072068013 = product of:
0.050447606 = sum of:
0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014125523 = score(doc=1395,freq=8.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
0.036322083 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036322083 = score(doc=1395,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- This article deals with the meaningful processing of information in relation to two systems of Information processing: pre-coordination and post-coordination. The different approaches are discussed, with emphasis an the need for a controlled vocabulary in information retrieval. Assigned indexing, which employs a controlled vocabulary, is described in detail. Types of indexing language can be divided into two broad groups - those using pre-coordinated terms and those depending an post-coordination. They represent two different basic approaches in processing and Information retrieval. The historical development of these two approaches is described, as well as the two tools that apply to these approaches: thesauri and subject headings.
- Theme
- Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval
-
Mooers, C.N.: ¬The indexing language of an information retrieval system (1985)
0.01
0.006408828 = product of:
0.029907864 = sum of:
0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0070627616 = score(doc=3644,freq=8.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
0.018161042 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018161042 = score(doc=3644,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.20260347 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
0.0046840613 = product of:
0.014052183 = sum of:
0.014052183 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014052183 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- Calvin Mooers' work toward the resolution of the problem of ambiguity in indexing went unrecognized for years. At the time he introduced the "descriptor" - a term with a very distinct meaning-indexers were, for the most part, taking index terms directly from the document, without either rationalizing them with context or normalizing them with some kind of classification. It is ironic that Mooers' term came to be attached to the popular but unsophisticated indexing methods which he was trying to root out. Simply expressed, what Mooers did was to take the dictionary definitions of terms and redefine them so clearly that they could not be used in any context except that provided by the new definition. He did, at great pains, construct such meanings for over four hundred words; disambiguation and specificity were sought after and found for these words. He proposed that all indexers adopt this method so that when the index supplied a term, it also supplied the exact meaning for that term as used in the indexed document. The same term used differently in another document would be defined differently and possibly renamed to avoid ambiguity. The disambiguation was achieved by using unabridged dictionaries and other sources of defining terminology. In practice, this tends to produce circularity in definition, that is, word A refers to word B which refers to word C which refers to word A. It was necessary, therefore, to break this chain by creating a new, definitive meaning for each word. Eventually, means such as those used by Austin (q.v.) for PRECIS achieved the same purpose, but by much more complex means than just creating a unique definition of each term. Mooers, however, was probably the first to realize how confusing undefined terminology could be. Early automatic indexers dealt with distinct disciplines and, as long as they did not stray beyond disciplinary boundaries, a quick and dirty keyword approach was satisfactory. The trouble came when attempts were made to make a combined index for two or more distinct disciplines. A number of processes have since been developed, mostly involving tagging of some kind or use of strings. Mooers' solution has rarely been considered seriously and probably would be extremely difficult to apply now because of so much interdisciplinarity. But for a specific, weIl defined field, it is still weIl worth considering. Mooers received training in mathematics and physics from the University of Minnesota and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was the founder of Zator Company, which developed and marketed a coded card information retrieval system, and of Rockford Research, Inc., which engages in research in information science. He is the inventor of the TRAC computer language.
- Footnote
- Original in: Information retrieval today: papers presented at an Institute conducted by the Library School and the Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, Sept. 19-22, 1962. Ed. by Wesley Simonton. Minneapolis, Minn.: The Center, 1963. S.21-36.
-
Khoo, C.; Chan, S.; Niu, Y.: ¬The many facets of the cause-effect relation (2002)
0.01
0.006374111 = product of:
0.044618774 = sum of:
0.03856498 = weight(_text_:wide in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03856498 = score(doc=1192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0060537956 = score(doc=1192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- This chapter presents a broad survey of the cause-effect relation, with particular emphasis an how the relation is expressed in text. Philosophers have been grappling with the concept of causation for centuries. Researchers in social psychology have found that the human mind has a very complex mechanism for identifying and attributing the cause for an event. Inferring cause-effect relations between events and statements has also been found to be an important part of reading and text comprehension, especially for narrative text. Though many of the cause-effect relations in text are implied and have to be inferred by the reader, there is also a wide variety of linguistic expressions for explicitly indicating cause and effect. In addition, it has been found that certain words have "causal valence"-they bias the reader to attribute cause in certain ways. Cause-effect relations can also be divided into several different types.
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
-
Vickery, B.B.: Structure and function in retrieval languages (2006)
0.01
0.0063587003 = product of:
0.0445109 = sum of:
0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00856136 = score(doc=5584,freq=4.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 5584, 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=5584)
0.03594954 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03594954 = score(doc=5584,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to summarize the varied structural characteristics which may be present in retrieval languages. Design/methodology/approach - The languages serve varied purposes in information systems, and a number of these are identified. The relations between structure and function are discussed and suggestions made as to the most suitable structures needed for various purposes. Findings - A quantitative approach has been developed: a simple measure is the number of separate terms in a retrieval language, but this has to be related to the scope of its subject field. Some ratio of terms to items in the field seems a more suitable measure of the average specificity of the terms. Other aspects can be quantified - for example, the average number of links in hierarchical chains, or the average number of cross-references in a thesaurus. Originality/value - All the approaches to the analysis of retrieval language reported in this paper are of continuing value. Some practical studies of computer information systems undertaken by Aslib Research Department have suggested a further approach.
-
Engerer, V.: Control and syntagmatization : vocabulary requirements in information retrieval thesauri and natural language lexicons (2017)
0.01
0.0061772587 = product of:
0.043240808 = sum of:
0.012107591 = weight(_text_:information in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012107591 = score(doc=3678,freq=8.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3678, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3678)
0.031133216 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031133216 = score(doc=3678,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 3678, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3678)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- This paper explores the relationships between natural language lexicons in lexical semantics and thesauri in information retrieval research. These different areas of knowledge have different restrictions on use of vocabulary; thesauri are used only in information search and retrieval contexts, whereas lexicons are mental systems and generally applicable in all domains of life. A set of vocabulary requirements that defines the more concrete characteristics of vocabulary items in the 2 contexts can be derived from this framework: lexicon items have to be learnable, complex, transparent, etc., whereas thesaurus terms must be effective, current and relevant, searchable, etc. The differences in vocabulary properties correlate with 2 other factors, the well-known dimension of Control (deliberate, social activities of building and maintaining vocabularies), and Syntagmatization, which is less known and describes vocabulary items' varying formal preparedness to exit the thesaurus/lexicon, enter into linear syntactic constructions, and, finally, acquire communicative functionality. It is proposed that there is an inverse relationship between Control and Syntagmatization.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.6, S.1480-1490
-
Casagrande, J.B.; Hale, K.L.: Semantic relations in Papago folk definitions (1967)
0.01
0.005721087 = product of:
0.04004761 = sum of:
0.010089659 = weight(_text_:information in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010089659 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
0.029957948 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029957948 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Footnote
- Zitiert in: Evens, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval. In: The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: R. Green u.a. Dordrecht: Kluwer 2002. S.143-160.
-
Gilchrist, A.: Structure and function in retrieval (2006)
0.01
0.005670654 = product of:
0.039694577 = sum of:
0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00856136 = score(doc=5585,freq=4.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 5585, 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=5585)
0.031133216 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031133216 = score(doc=5585,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This paper forms part of the series "60 years of the best in information research", marking the 60th anniversary of the Journal of Documentation. It aims to review the influence of Brian Vickery's 1971 paper, "Structure and function in retrieval languages". The paper is not an update of Vickery's work, but a comment on a greatly changed environment, in which his analysis still has much validity. Design/methodology/approach - A commentary on selected literature illustrates the continuing relevance of Vickery's ideas. Findings - Generic survey and specific reference are still the main functions of retrieval languages, with minor functional additions such as relevance ranking. New structures are becoming increasingly significant, through developments such as XML. Future development in artificial intelligence hold out new prospects still. Originality/value - The paper shows the continuing relevance of "traditional" ideas of information science from the 1960s and 1970s.
-
Tudhope, D.; Alani, H.; Jones, C.: Augmenting thesaurus relationships : possibilities for retrieval (2001)
0.01
0.005505548 = product of:
0.038538832 = sum of:
0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0050448296 = score(doc=1520,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
0.033494003 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033494003 = score(doc=1520,freq=10.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.37365708 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- This paper discusses issues concerning the augmentation of thesaurus relationships, in light of new application possibilities for retrieval. We first discuss a case study that explored the retrieval potential of an augmented set of thesaurus relationships by specialising standard relationships into richer subtypes, in particular hierarchical geographical containment and the associative relationship. We then locate this work in a broader context by reviewing various attempts to build taxonomies of thesaurus relationships, and conclude by discussing the feasibility of hierarchically augmenting the core set of thesaurus relationships, particularly the associative relationship. We discuss the possibility of enriching the specification and semantics of Related Term (RT relationships), while maintaining compatibility with traditional thesauri via a limited hierarchical extension of the associative (and hierarchical) relationships. This would be facilitated by distinguishing the type of term from the (sub)type of relationship and explicitly specifying semantic categories for terms following a faceted approach. We first illustrate how hierarchical spatial relationships can be used to provide more flexible retrieval for queries incorporating place names in applications employing online gazetteers and geographical thesauri. We then employ a set of experimental scenarios to investigate key issues affecting use of the associative (RT) thesaurus relationships in semantic distance measures. Previous work has noted the potential of RTs in thesaurus search aids but also the problem of uncontrolled expansion of query term sets. Results presented in this paper suggest the potential for taking account of the hierarchical context of an RT link and specialisations of the RT relationship
- Source
- Journal of digital information. 1(2001) no.8
- Theme
- Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
-
¬The semantics of relationships : an interdisciplinary perspective (2002)
0.01
0.005317847 = product of:
0.037224926 = sum of:
0.011280581 = weight(_text_:information in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011280581 = score(doc=1430,freq=10.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
0.025944345 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025944345 = score(doc=1430,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Work on relationships takes place in many communities, including, among others, data modeling, knowledge representation, natural language processing, linguistics, and information retrieval. Unfortunately, continued disciplinary splintering and specialization keeps any one person from being familiar with the full expanse of that work. By including contributions form experts in a variety of disciplines and backgrounds, this volume demonstrates both the parallels that inform work on relationships across a number of fields and the singular emphases that have yet to be fully embraced, The volume is organized into 3 parts: (1) Types of relationships (2) Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning (3) Applications of relationships
- Content
- Enthält die Beiträge: Pt.1: Types of relationships: CRUDE, D.A.: Hyponymy and its varieties; FELLBAUM, C.: On the semantics of troponymy; PRIBBENOW, S.: Meronymic relationships: from classical mereology to complex part-whole relations; KHOO, C. u.a.: The many facets of cause-effect relation - Pt.2: Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning: GREEN, R.: Internally-structured conceptual models in cognitive semantics; HOVY, E.: Comparing sets of semantic relations in ontologies; GUARINO, N., C. WELTY: Identity and subsumption; JOUIS; C.: Logic of relationships - Pt.3: Applications of relationships: EVENS, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval; KHOO, C., S.H. MYAENG: Identifying semantic relations in text for information retrieval and information extraction; McCRAY, A.T., O. BODENREICHER: A conceptual framework for the biiomedical domain; HETZLER, B.: Visual analysis and exploration of relationships
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
-
Green, R.: Syntagmatic relationships in index languages : a reassessment (1995)
0.01
0.00524566 = product of:
0.036719617 = sum of:
0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0070627616 = score(doc=3144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
0.029656855 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029656855 = score(doc=3144,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = 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)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- 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
-
Melton, J.S.: ¬A use for the techniques of structural linguistics in documentation research (1965)
0.00
0.0045768693 = product of:
0.032038085 = sum of:
0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008071727 = score(doc=834,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 834, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=834)
0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023966359 = score(doc=834,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 834, 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=834)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Index language (the system of symbols for representing subject content after analysis) is considered as a separate component and a variable in an information retrieval system. It is suggested that for purposes of testing, comparing and evaluating index language, the techniques of structural linguistics may provide a descriptive methodology by which all such languages (hierarchical and faceted classification, analytico-synthetic indexing, traditional subject indexing, indexes and classifications based on automatic text analysis, etc.) could be described in term of a linguistic model, and compared on a common basis
-
Fugmann, R.: Unusual possibilities in indexing and classification (1990)
0.00
0.0045768693 = product of:
0.032038085 = sum of:
0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008071727 = score(doc=4781,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4781, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4781)
0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023966359 = score(doc=4781,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 4781, 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=4781)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Contemporary research in information science has concentrated on the development of methods for the algorithmic processing of natural language texts. Often, the equivalence of this approach to the intellectual technique of content analysis and indexing is claimed. It is, however, disregarded that contemporary intellectual techniques are far from exploiting their full capabilities. This is largely due to the omission of vocabulary categorisation. It is demonstrated how categorisation can drastically improve the quality of indexing and classification, and, hence, of retrieval
