Search (37 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Computerlinguistik"
  • × theme_ss:"Automatisches Indexieren"
  1. Experimentelles und praktisches Information Retrieval : Festschrift für Gerhard Lustig (1992) 0.01 
    0.008912211 = product of:
  0.062385477 = sum of:
    0.01482871 = weight(_text_:information in 4) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01482871 = score(doc=4,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 4, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4)
    0.04755677 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04755677 = score(doc=4,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5305404 = fieldWeight in 4, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: SALTON, G.: Effective text understanding in information retrieval; KRAUSE, J.: Intelligentes Information retrieval; FUHR, N.: Konzepte zur Gestaltung zukünftiger Information-Retrieval-Systeme; HÜTHER, H.: Überlegungen zu einem mathematischen Modell für die Type-Token-, die Grundform-Token und die Grundform-Type-Relation; KNORZ, G.: Automatische Generierung inferentieller Links in und zwischen Hyperdokumenten; KONRAD, E.: Zur Effektivitätsbewertung von Information-Retrieval-Systemen; HENRICHS, N.: Retrievalunterstützung durch automatisch generierte Wortfelder; LÜCK, W., W. RITTBERGER u. M. SCHWANTNER: Der Einsatz des Automatischen Indexierungs- und Retrieval-System (AIR) im Fachinformationszentrum Karlsruhe; REIMER, U.: Verfahren der Automatischen Indexierung. Benötigtes Vorwissen und Ansätze zu seiner automatischen Akquisition: Ein Überblick; ENDRES-NIGGEMEYER, B.: Dokumentrepräsentation: Ein individuelles prozedurales Modell des Abstracting, des Indexierens und Klassifizierens; SEELBACH, D.: Zur Entwicklung von zwei- und mehrsprachigen lexikalischen Datenbanken und Terminologiedatenbanken; ZIMMERMANN, H.: Der Einfluß der Sprachbarrieren in Europa und Möglichkeiten zu ihrer Minderung; LENDERS, W.: Wörter zwischen Welt und Wissen; PANYR, J.: Frames, Thesauri und automatische Klassifikation (Clusteranalyse): HAHN, U.: Forschungsstrategien und Erkenntnisinteressen in der anwendungsorientierten automatischen Sprachverarbeitung. Überlegungen zu einer ingenieurorientierten Computerlinguistik; KUHLEN, R.: Hypertext und Information Retrieval - mehr als Browsing und Suche.
  2. Chowdhury, G.G.: Natural language processing and information retrieval : pt.1: basic issues; pt.2: major applications (1991) 0.01 
    0.008090839 = product of:
  0.05663587 = sum of:
    0.014268933 = weight(_text_:information in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014268933 = score(doc=3313,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
    0.042366937 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042366937 = score(doc=3313,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.47264296 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Reviews the basic issues and procedures involved in natural language processing of textual material for final use in information retrieval. Covers: natural language processing; natural language understanding; syntactic and semantic analysis; parsing; knowledge bases and knowledge representation
  3. Rapke, K.: Automatische Indexierung von Volltexten für die Gruner+Jahr Pressedatenbank (2001) 0.01 
    0.007154687 = product of:
  0.050082806 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 6386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=6386,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 6386, 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=6386)
    0.044029012 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044029012 = score(doc=6386,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.49118498 = fieldWeight in 6386, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6386)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Retrieval Tests sind die anerkannteste Methode, um neue Verfahren der Inhaltserschließung gegenüber traditionellen Verfahren zu rechtfertigen. Im Rahmen einer Diplomarbeit wurden zwei grundsätzlich unterschiedliche Systeme der automatischen inhaltlichen Erschließung anhand der Pressedatenbank des Verlagshauses Gruner + Jahr (G+J) getestet und evaluiert. Untersucht wurde dabei natürlichsprachliches Retrieval im Vergleich zu Booleschem Retrieval. Bei den beiden Systemen handelt es sich zum einen um Autonomy von Autonomy Inc. und DocCat, das von IBM an die Datenbankstruktur der G+J Pressedatenbank angepasst wurde. Ersteres ist ein auf natürlichsprachlichem Retrieval basierendes, probabilistisches System. DocCat demgegenüber basiert auf Booleschem Retrieval und ist ein lernendes System, das auf Grund einer intellektuell erstellten Trainingsvorlage indexiert. Methodisch geht die Evaluation vom realen Anwendungskontext der Textdokumentation von G+J aus. Die Tests werden sowohl unter statistischen wie auch qualitativen Gesichtspunkten bewertet. Ein Ergebnis der Tests ist, dass DocCat einige Mängel gegenüber der intellektuellen Inhaltserschließung aufweist, die noch behoben werden müssen, während das natürlichsprachliche Retrieval von Autonomy in diesem Rahmen und für die speziellen Anforderungen der G+J Textdokumentation so nicht einsetzbar ist
    Source
    nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 52(2001) H.5, S.251-262
  4. Porter, M.F.: ¬An algorithm for suffix stripping (1980) 0.01 
    0.006865305 = product of:
  0.04805713 = sum of:
    0.012107591 = weight(_text_:information in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012107591 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3122, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3122)
    0.03594954 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03594954 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 3122, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3122)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Footnote
    Wiederabgedruckt in: Readings in information retrieval. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones u. P. Willett. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann 1997. S.313-316.
  5. SIGIR'92 : Proceedings of the 15th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (1992) 0.01 
    0.0062036896 = product of:
  0.043425824 = sum of:
    0.00865008 = weight(_text_:information in 6671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00865008 = score(doc=6671,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16628155 = fieldWeight in 6671, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=6671)
    0.034775745 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034775745 = score(doc=6671,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3879561 = fieldWeight in 6671, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=6671)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Content
    HARMAN, D.: Relevance feedback revisited; AALBERSBERG, I.J.: Incremental relevance feedback; TAGUE-SUTCLIFFE, J.: Measuring the informativeness of a retrieval process; LEWIS, D.D.: An evaluation of phrasal and clustered representations on a text categorization task; BLOSSEVILLE, M.J., G. HÉBRAIL, M.G. MONTEIL u. N. PÉNOT: Automatic document classification: natural language processing, statistical analysis, and expert system techniques used together; MASAND, B., G. LINOFF u. D. WALTZ: Classifying news stories using memory based reasoning; KEEN, E.M.: Term position ranking: some new test results; CROUCH, C.J. u. B. YANG: Experiments in automatic statistical thesaurus construction; GREFENSTETTE, G.: Use of syntactic context to produce term association lists for text retrieval; ANICK, P.G. u. R.A. FLYNN: Versioning of full-text information retrieval system; BURKOWSKI, F.J.: Retrieval activities in a database consisting of heterogeneous collections; DEERWESTER, S.C., K. WACLENA u. M. LaMAR: A textual object management system; NIE, J.-Y.:Towards a probabilistic modal logic for semantic-based information retrieval; WANG, A.W., S.K.M. WONG u. Y.Y. YAO: An analysis of vector space models based on computational geometry; BARTELL, B.T., G.W. COTTRELL u. R.K. BELEW: Latent semantic indexing is an optimal special case of multidimensional scaling; GLAVITSCH, U. u. P. SCHÄUBLE: A system for retrieving speech documents; MARGULIS, E.L.: N-Poisson document modelling; HESS, M.: An incrementally extensible document retrieval system based on linguistics and logical principles; COOPER, W.S., F.C. GEY u. D.P. DABNEY: Probabilistic retrieval based on staged logistic regression; FUHR, N.: Integration of probabilistic fact and text retrieval; CROFT, B., L.A. SMITH u. H. TURTLE: A loosely-coupled integration of a text retrieval system and an object-oriented database system; DUMAIS, S.T. u. J. NIELSEN: Automating the assignement of submitted manuscripts to reviewers; GOST, M.A. u. M. MASOTTI: Design of an OPAC database to permit different subject searching accesses; ROBERTSON, A.M. u. P. WILLETT: Searching for historical word forms in a database of 17th century English text using spelling correction methods; FAX, E.A., Q.F. CHEN u. L.S. HEATH: A faster algorithm for constructing minimal perfect hash functions; MOFFAT, A. u. J. ZOBEL: Parameterised compression for sparse bitmaps; GRANDI, F., P. TIBERIO u. P. Zezula: Frame-sliced patitioned parallel signature files; ALLEN, B.: Cognitive differences in end user searching of a CD-ROM index; SONNENWALD, D.H.: Developing a theory to guide the process of designing information retrieval systems; CUTTING, D.R., J.O. PEDERSEN, D. KARGER, u. J.W. TUKEY: Scatter/ Gather: a cluster-based approach to browsing large document collections; CHALMERS, M. u. P. CHITSON: Bead: Explorations in information visualization; WILLIAMSON, C. u. B. SHNEIDERMAN: The dynamic HomeFinder: evaluating dynamic queries in a real-estate information exploring system
  6. Polity, Y.: Vers une ergonomie linguistique (1994) 0.01 
    0.006002185 = product of:
  0.04201529 = sum of:
    0.01804893 = weight(_text_:information in 36) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01804893 = score(doc=36,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3469568 = fieldWeight in 36, 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=36)
    0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 36) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023966359 = score(doc=36,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 36, 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=36)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Analyzed a special type of man-mchine interaction, that of searching an information system with natural language. A model for full text processing for information retrieval was proposed that considered the system's users and how they employ information. Describes how INIST (the National Institute for Scientific and Technical Information) is developing computer assisted indexing as an aid to improving relevance when retrieving information from bibliographic data banks
  7. Salton, G.: Automatic processing of foreign language documents (1985) 0.01 
    0.0056823203 = product of:
  0.03977624 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 3650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=3650,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3650, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3650)
    0.03170451 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03170451 = score(doc=3650,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3536936 = fieldWeight in 3650, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3650)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    The attempt to computerize a process, such as indexing, abstracting, classifying, or retrieving information, begins with an analysis of the process into its intellectual and nonintellectual components. That part of the process which is amenable to computerization is mechanical or algorithmic. What is not is intellectual or creative and requires human intervention. Gerard Salton has been an innovator, experimenter, and promoter in the area of mechanized information systems since the early 1960s. He has been particularly ingenious at analyzing the process of information retrieval into its algorithmic components. He received a doctorate in applied mathematics from Harvard University before moving to the computer science department at Cornell, where he developed a prototype automatic retrieval system called SMART. Working with this system he and his students contributed for over a decade to our theoretical understanding of the retrieval process. On a more practical level, they have contributed design criteria for operating retrieval systems. The following selection presents one of the early descriptions of the SMART system; it is valuable as it shows the direction automatic retrieval methods were to take beyond simple word-matching techniques. These include various word normalization techniques to improve recall, for instance, the separation of words into stems and affixes; the correlation and clustering, using statistical association measures, of related terms; and the identification, using a concept thesaurus, of synonymous, broader, narrower, and sibling terms. They include, as weIl, techniques, both linguistic and statistical, to deal with the thorny problem of how to automatically extract from texts index terms that consist of more than one word. They include weighting techniques and various documentrequest matching algorithms. Significant among the latter are those which produce a retrieval output of citations ranked in relevante order. During the 1970s, Salton and his students went an to further refine these various techniques, particularly the weighting and statistical association measures. Many of their early innovations seem commonplace today. Some of their later techniques are still ahead of their time and await technological developments for implementation. The particular focus of the selection that follows is an the evaluation of a particular component of the SMART system, a multilingual thesaurus. By mapping English language expressions and their German equivalents to a common concept number, the thesaurus permitted the automatic processing of German language documents against English language queries and vice versa. The results of the evaluation, as it turned out, were somewhat inconclusive. However, this SMART experiment suggested in a bold and optimistic way how one might proceed to answer such complex questions as What is meant by retrieval language compatability? How it is to be achieved, and how evaluated?
    Footnote
    Original in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science 21(1970) no.3, S.187-194.
  8. Kuhlen, R.: Experimentelle Morphologie in der Informationswissenschaft (1977) 0.01 
    0.0056635872 = product of:
  0.03964511 = sum of:
    0.009988253 = weight(_text_:information in 4253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009988253 = score(doc=4253,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 4253, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4253)
    0.029656855 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029656855 = score(doc=4253,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 4253, 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=4253)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    LCSH
    Information storage and retrieval systems
    Subject
    Information storage and retrieval systems
  9. Fagan, J.L.: ¬The effectiveness of a nonsyntactic approach to automatic phrase indexing for document retrieval (1989) 0.01 
    0.0055279788 = product of:
  0.03869585 = sum of:
    0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 1845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008737902 = score(doc=1845,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1845, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1845)
    0.029957948 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029957948 = score(doc=1845,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1845, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1845)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    It may be possible to improve the quality of automatic indexing systems by using complex descriptors, for example, phrases, in addition to the simple descriptors (words or word stems) that are normally used in automatically constructed representations of document content. This study is directed toward the goal of developing effective methods of identifying phrases in natural language text from which good quality phrase descriptors can be constructed. The effectiveness of one method, a simple nonsyntactic phrase indexing procedure, has been tested on five experimental document collections. The results have been analyzed in order to identify the inadequacies of the procedure, and to determine what kinds of information about text structure are needed in order to construct phrase descriptors that are good indicators of document content. Two primary conclusions have been reached: (1) In the retrieval experiments, the nonsyntactic phrase construction procedure did not consistently yield substantial improvements in effectiveness. It is therefore not likely that phrase indexing of this kind will prove to be an important method of enhancing the performance of automatic document indexing and retrieval systems in operational environments. (2) Many of the shortcomings of the nonsyntactic approach can be overcome by incorporating syntactic information into the phrase construction process. However, a general syntactic analysis facility may be required, since many useful sources of phrases cannot be exploited if only a limited inventory of syntactic patterns can be recognized. Further research should be conducted into methods of incorporating automatic syntactic analysis into content analysis for document retrieval.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 40(1989) no.2, S.115-132
  10. Rapke, K.: Automatische Indexierung von Volltexten für die Gruner+Jahr Pressedatenbank (2001) 0.01 
    0.005505548 = product of:
  0.038538832 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 5863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=5863,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5863, 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=5863)
    0.033494003 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033494003 = score(doc=5863,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.37365708 = fieldWeight in 5863, 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=5863)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Retrievaltests sind die anerkannteste Methode, um neue Verfahren der Inhaltserschließung gegenüber traditionellen Verfahren zu rechtfertigen. Im Rahmen einer Diplomarbeit wurden zwei grundsätzlich unterschiedliche Systeme der automatischen inhaltlichen Erschließung anhand der Pressedatenbank des Verlagshauses Gruner + Jahr (G+J) getestet und evaluiert. Untersucht wurde dabei natürlichsprachliches Retrieval im Vergleich zu Booleschem Retrieval. Bei den beiden Systemen handelt es sich zum einen um Autonomy von Autonomy Inc. und DocCat, das von IBM an die Datenbankstruktur der G+J Pressedatenbank angepasst wurde. Ersteres ist ein auf natürlichsprachlichem Retrieval basierendes, probabilistisches System. DocCat demgegenüber basiert auf Booleschem Retrieval und ist ein lernendes System, das aufgrund einer intellektuell erstellten Trainingsvorlage indexiert. Methodisch geht die Evaluation vom realen Anwendungskontext der Textdokumentation von G+J aus. Die Tests werden sowohl unter statistischen wie auch qualitativen Gesichtspunkten bewertet. Ein Ergebnis der Tests ist, dass DocCat einige Mängel gegenüber der intellektuellen Inhaltserschließung aufweist, die noch behoben werden müssen, während das natürlichsprachliche Retrieval von Autonomy in diesem Rahmen und für die speziellen Anforderungen der G+J Textdokumentation so nicht einsetzbar ist
    Source
    Information Research & Content Management: Orientierung, Ordnung und Organisation im Wissensmarkt; 23. DGI-Online-Tagung der DGI und 53. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis e.V. DGI, Frankfurt am Main, 8.-10.5.2001. Proceedings. Hrsg.: R. Schmidt
  11. Garfield, E.: ¬The relationship between mechanical indexing, structural linguistics and information retrieval (1992) 0.01 
    0.005054501 = product of:
  0.035381503 = sum of:
    0.011415146 = weight(_text_:information in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011415146 = score(doc=3632,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 3632, 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=3632)
    0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023966359 = score(doc=3632,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 3632, 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=3632)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Source
    Journal of information science. 18(1992) no.5, S.343-354
  12. Ahlgren, P.; Kekäläinen, J.: Indexing strategies for Swedish full text retrieval under different user scenarios (2007) 0.01 
    0.005000397 = product of:
  0.03500278 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=896,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 896, 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=896)
    0.029957948 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029957948 = score(doc=896,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 896, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=896)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    This paper deals with Swedish full text retrieval and the problem of morphological variation of query terms in the document database. The effects of combination of indexing strategies with query terms on retrieval effectiveness were studied. Three of five tested combinations involved indexing strategies that used conflation, in the form of normalization. Further, two of these three combinations used indexing strategies that employed compound splitting. Normalization and compound splitting were performed by SWETWOL, a morphological analyzer for the Swedish language. A fourth combination attempted to group related terms by right hand truncation of query terms. The four combinations were compared to each other and to a baseline combination, where no attempt was made to counteract the problem of morphological variation of query terms in the document database. The five combinations were evaluated under six different user scenarios, where each scenario simulated a certain user type. The four alternative combinations outperformed the baseline, for each user scenario. The truncation combination had the best performance under each user scenario. The main conclusion of the paper is that normalization and right hand truncation (performed by a search expert) enhanced retrieval effectiveness in comparison to the baseline. The performance of the three combinations of indexing strategies with query terms based on normalization was not far below the performance of the truncation combination.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.1, S.81-102
  13. Fox, C.: Lexical analysis and stoplists (1992) 0.00 
    0.0045768693 = product of:
  0.032038085 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 3502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=3502,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3502, 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=3502)
    0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023966359 = score(doc=3502,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 3502, 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=3502)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Source
    Information retrieval: data structures and algorithms. Ed.: W.B. Frakes u. R. Baeza-Yates
  14. Wacholder, N.; Byrd, R.J.: Retrieving information from full text using linguistic knowledge (1994) 0.00 
    0.00406575 = product of:
  0.028460251 = sum of:
    0.0104854815 = weight(_text_:information in 8524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0104854815 = score(doc=8524,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 8524, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8524)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=8524,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 8524, 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=8524)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Examines how techniques in the field of natural language processing can be applied to the analysis of text in information retrieval. State of the art text searching programs cannot distinguish, for example, between occurrences of the sickness, AIDS and aids as tool or between library school and school nor equate such terms as online or on-line which are variants of the same form. To make these distinction, systems must incorporate knowledge about the meaning of words in context. Research in natural language processing has concentrated on the automatic 'understanding' of language; how to analyze the grammatical structure and meaning of text. Although many asoects of this research remain experimental, describes how these techniques to recognize spelling variants, names, acronyms, and abbreviations
    Imprint
    Medford, NJ : Learned Information
  15. Needham, R.M.; Sparck Jones, K.: Keywords and clumps (1985) 0.00 
    0.0040628472 = product of:
  0.02843993 = sum of:
    0.0049941265 = weight(_text_:information in 3645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0049941265 = score(doc=3645,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0960027 = fieldWeight in 3645, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3645)
    0.023445804 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023445804 = score(doc=3645,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.26155996 = fieldWeight in 3645, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3645)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    The selection that follows was chosen as it represents "a very early paper an the possibilities allowed by computers an documentation." In the early 1960s computers were being used to provide simple automatic indexing systems wherein keywords were extracted from documents. The problem with such systems was that they lacked vocabulary control, thus documents related in subject matter were not always collocated in retrieval. To improve retrieval by improving recall is the raison d'être of vocabulary control tools such as classifications and thesauri. The question arose whether it was possible by automatic means to construct classes of terms, which when substituted, one for another, could be used to improve retrieval performance? One of the first theoretical approaches to this question was initiated by R. M. Needham and Karen Sparck Jones at the Cambridge Language Research Institute in England.t The question was later pursued using experimental methodologies by Sparck Jones, who, as a Senior Research Associate in the Computer Laboratory at the University of Cambridge, has devoted her life's work to research in information retrieval and automatic naturai language processing. Based an the principles of numerical taxonomy, automatic classification techniques start from the premise that two objects are similar to the degree that they share attributes in common. When these two objects are keywords, their similarity is measured in terms of the number of documents they index in common. Step 1 in automatic classification is to compute mathematically the degree to which two terms are similar. Step 2 is to group together those terms that are "most similar" to each other, forming equivalence classes of intersubstitutable terms. The technique for forming such classes varies and is the factor that characteristically distinguishes different approaches to automatic classification. The technique used by Needham and Sparck Jones, that of clumping, is described in the selection that follows. Questions that must be asked are whether the use of automatically generated classes really does improve retrieval performance and whether there is a true eco nomic advantage in substituting mechanical for manual labor. Several years after her work with clumping, Sparck Jones was to observe that while it was not wholly satisfactory in itself, it was valuable in that it stimulated research into automatic classification. To this it might be added that it was valuable in that it introduced to libraryl information science the methods of numerical taxonomy, thus stimulating us to think again about the fundamental nature and purpose of classification. In this connection it might be useful to review how automatically derived classes differ from those of manually constructed classifications: 1) the manner of their derivation is purely a posteriori, the ultimate operationalization of the principle of literary warrant; 2) the relationship between members forming such classes is essentially statistical; the members of a given class are similar to each other not because they possess the class-defining characteristic but by virtue of sharing a family resemblance; and finally, 3) automatically derived classes are not related meaningfully one to another, that is, they are not ordered in traditional hierarchical and precedence relationships.
  16. Volk, M.; Mittermaier, H.; Schurig, A.; Biedassek, T.: Halbautomatische Volltextanalyse, Datenbankaufbau und Document Retrieval (1992) 0.00 
    0.004004761 = product of:
  0.028033325 = sum of:
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 2571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=2571,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2571, 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=2571)
    0.020970564 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020970564 = score(doc=2571,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 2571, 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=2571)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    In diesem Aufsatz beschreiben wir ein System zur Analyse von Kurzartikeln. Das System arbeitet halbautomatisch. Das heißt, zunächst wird der Artikel vom System analysiert und dann dem benutzer zur Nachberarbeitung vorgelegt. Die so gewonnene Information wird in einem Datenbankeintrag abgelegt. Über die Datenbank - in dBase IV implementiert - sind dann Abfragen und Zugriffe auf die Originaltexte effizient möglich. Der Kern dieses Aufsatzes betrifft die halbautomatische Analyse. Wir beschreiben unser Verfahren für parametrisiertes Pattern Matching sowie linguistische Heuristiken zur Ermittlung von Nominalphrasen und Präpositionalphrasen. Das System wurde für den praktischen Einsatz im Bonner Büro des 'Forums InformatikerInnen Für Frieden und gesellschaftliche Verantwortung e.V. (FIFF)' entwickelt
  17. Snajder, J.; Dalbelo Basic, B.D.; Tadic, M.: Automatic acquisition of inflectional lexica for morphological normalisation (2008) 0.00 
    0.003790876 = product of:
  0.02653613 = sum of:
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 2910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=2910,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2910, 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=2910)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=2910,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2910, 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=2910)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Due to natural language morphology, words can take on various morphological forms. Morphological normalisation - often used in information retrieval and text mining systems - conflates morphological variants of a word to a single representative form. In this paper, we describe an approach to lexicon-based inflectional normalisation. This approach is in between stemming and lemmatisation, and is suitable for morphological normalisation of inflectionally complex languages. To eliminate the immense effort required to compile the lexicon by hand, we focus on the problem of acquiring automatically an inflectional morphological lexicon from raw corpora. We propose a convenient and highly expressive morphology representation formalism on which the acquisition procedure is based. Our approach is applied to the morphologically complex Croatian language, but it should be equally applicable to other languages of similar morphological complexity. Experimental results show that our approach can be used to acquire a lexicon whose linguistic quality allows for rather good normalisation performance.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.5, S.1720-1731
  18. Riloff, E.: ¬An empirical study of automated dictionary construction for information extraction in three domains (1996) 0.00 
    0.0035267244 = product of:
  0.02468707 = sum of:
    0.013980643 = weight(_text_:information in 6752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013980643 = score(doc=6752,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 6752, 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=6752)
    0.010706427 = product of:
      0.032119278 = sum of:
        0.032119278 = weight(_text_:22 in 6752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032119278 = score(doc=6752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6752)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    AutoSlog is a system that addresses the knowledge engineering bottleneck for information extraction. AutoSlog automatically creates domain specific dictionaries for information extraction, given an appropriate training corpus. Describes experiments with AutoSlog in terrorism, joint ventures and microelectronics domains. Compares the performance of AutoSlog across the 3 domains, discusses the lessons learned and presents results from 2 experiments which demonstrate that novice users can generate effective dictionaries using AutoSlog
    Date
    6. 3.1997 16:22:15
  19. Witschel, H.F.: Terminology extraction and automatic indexing : comparison and qualitative evaluation of methods (2005) 0.00 
    0.0028605436 = product of:
  0.020023804 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 1842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=1842,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1842, 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=1842)
    0.014978974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014978974 = score(doc=1842,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1842, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1842)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Many terminology engineering processes involve the task of automatic terminology extraction: before the terminology of a given domain can be modelled, organised or standardised, important concepts (or terms) of this domain have to be identified and fed into terminological databases. These serve in further steps as a starting point for compiling dictionaries, thesauri or maybe even terminological ontologies for the domain. For the extraction of the initial concepts, extraction methods are needed that operate on specialised language texts. On the other hand, many machine learning or information retrieval applications require automatic indexing techniques. In Machine Learning applications concerned with the automatic clustering or classification of texts, often feature vectors are needed that describe the contents of a given text briefly but meaningfully. These feature vectors typically consist of a fairly small set of index terms together with weights indicating their importance. Short but meaningful descriptions of document contents as provided by good index terms are also useful to humans: some knowledge management applications (e.g. topic maps) use them as a set of basic concepts (topics). The author believes that the tasks of terminology extraction and automatic indexing have much in common and can thus benefit from the same set of basic algorithms. It is the goal of this paper to outline some methods that may be used in both contexts, but also to find the discriminating factors between the two tasks that call for the variation of parameters or application of different techniques. The discussion of these methods will be based on statistical, syntactical and especially morphological properties of (index) terms. The paper is concluded by the presentation of some qualitative and quantitative results comparing statistical and morphological methods.
  20. Goller, C.; Löning, J.; Will, T.; Wolff, W.: Automatic document classification : a thourough evaluation of various methods (2000) 0.00 
    0.0027546415 = product of:
  0.03856498 = sum of:
    0.03856498 = weight(_text_:wide in 5480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03856498 = score(doc=5480,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 5480, 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=5480)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    (Automatic) document classification is generally defined as content-based assignment of one or more predefined categories to documents. Usually, machine learning, statistical pattern recognition, or neural network approaches are used to construct classifiers automatically. In this paper we thoroughly evaluate a wide variety of these methods on a document classification task for German text. We evaluate different feature construction and selection methods and various classifiers. Our main results are: (1) feature selection is necessary not only to reduce learning and classification time, but also to avoid overfitting (even for Support Vector Machines); (2) surprisingly, our morphological analysis does not improve classification quality compared to a letter 5-gram approach; (3) Support Vector Machines are significantly better than all other classification methods

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 23
  • d 12
  • f 1
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 32
  • s 2
  • el 1
  • m 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications