Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Computerlinguistik"
  • × author_ss:"Robertson, S.E."
  1. Robertson, S.E.; Sparck Jones, K.: Relevance weighting of search terms (1976) 0.01 
    0.0054210005 = product of:
  0.037947003 = sum of:
    0.013980643 = weight(_text_:information in 71) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013980643 = score(doc=71,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 71, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=71)
    0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 71) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023966359 = score(doc=71,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 71, 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=71)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Examines statistical techniques for exploiting relevance information to weight search terms. These techniques are presented as a natural extension of weighting methods using information about the distribution of index terms in documents in general. A series of relevance weighting functions is derived and is justified by theoretical considerations. In particular, it is shown that specific weighted search methods are implied by a general probabilistic theory of retrieval. Different applications of relevance weighting are illustrated by experimental results for test collections
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 27(1976), S.129-146
  2. Vechtomova, O.; Karamuftuoglum, M.; Robertson, S.E.: On document relevance and lexical cohesion between query terms (2006) 0.00 
    0.003790876 = product of:
  0.02653613 = sum of:
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=987,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 987, 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=987)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=987,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 987, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=987)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Lexical cohesion is a property of text, achieved through lexical-semantic relations between words in text. Most information retrieval systems make use of lexical relations in text only to a limited extent. In this paper we empirically investigate whether the degree of lexical cohesion between the contexts of query terms' occurrences in a document is related to its relevance to the query. Lexical cohesion between distinct query terms in a document is estimated on the basis of the lexical-semantic relations (repetition, synonymy, hyponymy and sibling) that exist between there collocates - words that co-occur with them in the same windows of text. Experiments suggest significant differences between the lexical cohesion in relevant and non-relevant document sets exist. A document ranking method based on lexical cohesion shows some performance improvements.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.5, S.1230-1247

Authors

Years