Search (137 results, page 1 of 7)

0.17393503 = product of:
  0.21741877 = sum of:
    0.04909682 = product of:
      0.14729045 = sum of:
        0.14729045 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14729045 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39311135 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.01155891 = weight(_text_:a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01155891 = score(doc=701,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
    0.14729045 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14729045 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39311135 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
    0.009472587 = product of:
      0.018945174 = sum of:
        0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018945174 = score(doc=701,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23274568 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)

Abstract

By the explosion of possibilities for a ubiquitous content production, the information overload problem reaches the level of complexity which cannot be managed by traditional modelling approaches anymore. Due to their pure syntactical nature traditional information retrieval approaches did not succeed in treating content itself (i.e. its meaning, and not its representation). This leads to a very low usefulness of the results of a retrieval process for a user's task at hand. In the last ten years ontologies have been emerged from an interesting conceptualisation paradigm to a very promising (semantic) modelling technology, especially in the context of the Semantic Web. From the information retrieval point of view, ontologies enable a machine-understandable form of content description, such that the retrieval process can be driven by the meaning of the content. However, the very ambiguous nature of the retrieval process in which a user, due to the unfamiliarity with the underlying repository and/or query syntax, just approximates his information need in a query, implies a necessity to include the user in the retrieval process more actively in order to close the gap between the meaning of the content and the meaning of a user's query (i.e. his information need). This thesis lays foundation for such an ontology-based interactive retrieval process, in which the retrieval system interacts with a user in order to conceptually interpret the meaning of his query, whereas the underlying domain ontology drives the conceptualisation process. In that way the retrieval process evolves from a query evaluation process into a highly interactive cooperation between a user and the retrieval system, in which the system tries to anticipate the user's information need and to deliver the relevant content proactively. Moreover, the notion of content relevance for a user's query evolves from a content dependent artefact to the multidimensional context-dependent structure, strongly influenced by the user's preferences. This cooperation process is realized as the so-called Librarian Agent Query Refinement Process. In order to clarify the impact of an ontology on the retrieval process (regarding its complexity and quality), a set of methods and tools for different levels of content and query formalisation is developed, ranging from pure ontology-based inferencing to keyword-based querying in which semantics automatically emerges from the results. Our evaluation studies have shown that the possibilities to conceptualize a user's information need in the right manner and to interpret the retrieval results accordingly are key issues for realizing much more meaningful information retrieval systems.

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F1627&ei=tAtYUYrBNoHKtQb3l4GYBw&usg=AFQjCNHeaxKkKU3-u54LWxMNYGXaaDLCGw&sig2=8WykXWQoDKjDSdGtAakH2Q&bvm=bv.44442042,d.Yms.

0.04883749 = product of:
  0.12209372 = sum of:
    0.095440306 = weight(_text_:91 in 4441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095440306 = score(doc=4441,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25837386 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.3693884 = fieldWeight in 4441, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4441)
    0.02665342 = product of:
      0.05330684 = sum of:
        0.05330684 = weight(_text_:22 in 4441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05330684 = score(doc=4441,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 4441, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4441)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

22. 2.2000 10:25:05

Pages

91 S

Series

Kölner Arbeitspapiere zur Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft; Bd.22

0.034046143 = product of:
  0.08511536 = sum of:
    0.079533584 = weight(_text_:91 in 4434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079533584 = score(doc=4434,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25837386 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.30782366 = fieldWeight in 4434, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4434)
    0.0055817757 = product of:
      0.011163551 = sum of:
        0.011163551 = weight(_text_:information in 4434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011163551 = score(doc=4434,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4434, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4434)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

Bachelorarbeit im Studiengang Bibliotheks- und Informationsmanagement, Fakultät Information und Kommunikation, Hochschule der Medien Stuttgart

Imprint

Stuttgart : Hochschule der Medien / Fakultät Information und Kommunikation

Pages

91 S

0.027424974 = product of:
  0.06856243 = sum of:
    0.0076151006 = weight(_text_:a in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076151006 = score(doc=642,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 642, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=642)
    0.060947336 = sum of:
      0.02953598 = weight(_text_:information in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02953598 = score(doc=642,freq=28.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.3628561 = fieldWeight in 642, product of:
            5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
              28.0 = termFreq=28.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=642)
      0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031411353 = score(doc=642,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 642, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=642)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The past decade has seen the emergence of a new paradigm in the corporate world where organisations emphasised connectivity as a means of exposing decision-makers to wider resources of information within and outside the organisation. Many organisations followed the initiatives of enhancing infrastructures, manipulating cultural shifts and emphasising managerial commitment for creating pools and networks of knowledge. However, the concept of connectivity is not merely presenting people with the data, but more importantly, to create environments where people can seek information efficiently. This paradigm has therefore caused a shift in the function of information systems in organisations. They have to be now assessed in relation to how they underpin people's information-seeking activities within the context of their organisational environment. This research project used interpretative research methods to investigate the nature of people's information-seeking activities at two culturally contrasting organisations. Outcomes of this research project provide insights into phenomena associated with people's information-seeking function, and show how they depend on the organisational context that is defined partly by information systems. It suggests that information-seeking is not just searching for data. The inefficiencies inherent in both people and their environments can bring opaqueness into people's data, which they need to avoid or eliminate as part of seeking information. This seems to have made information-seeking a two-tier process consisting of a primary process of searching and interpreting data and auxiliary process of avoiding and eliminating opaqueness in data. Based on this view, this research suggests that organisational information systems operate naturally as implicit dual-mechanisms to underpin the above two-tier process, and that improvements to information systems should concern maintaining the balance in these dual-mechanisms.

Date

22. 7.2022 12:16:58

0.0220109 = product of:
  0.1100545 = sum of:
    0.1100545 = sum of:
      0.022102704 = weight(_text_:information in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022102704 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
      0.087951794 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.087951794 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

26.11.2005 18:39:22

Imprint

Potsdam : Fachhochschule, Institut für Information und Dokumentation

0.018866485 = product of:
  0.09433242 = sum of:
    0.09433242 = sum of:
      0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 4865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018945174 = score(doc=4865,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4865, 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=4865)
      0.07538725 = weight(_text_:22 in 4865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07538725 = score(doc=4865,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4865, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4865)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:59

Theme

Information Gateway

0.012231203 = product of:
  0.030578006 = sum of:
    0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 1409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005448922 = score(doc=1409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1409)
    0.025129084 = product of:
      0.050258167 = sum of:
        0.050258167 = weight(_text_:22 in 1409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050258167 = score(doc=1409,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1409, 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=1409)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Nach der Veröffentlichung einer deutschen Übersetzung der Dewey Decimal Classification 22 im Oktober 2005 und ihrer Nutzung zur Inhaltserschließung in der Deutschen Nationalbibliographie seit Januar 2006 stellt sich aus Sicht der deutschen kunsthistorischen Spezialbibliotheken die Frage nach einer möglichen Verwendung der DDC und ihrer generellen Eignung zur Inhalterschließung kunsthistorischer Publikationen. Diese Frage wird vor dem Hintergrund der bestehenden bibliothekarischen Strukturen für die Kunstgeschichte sowie mit Blick auf die inhaltlichen Besonderheiten, die Forschungsmethodik und die publizistischen Traditionen dieses Faches erörtert.

0.010666321 = product of:
  0.026665803 = sum of:
    0.0067426977 = weight(_text_:a in 560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067426977 = score(doc=560,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 560, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=560)
    0.019923106 = product of:
      0.03984621 = sum of:
        0.03984621 = weight(_text_:information in 560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03984621 = score(doc=560,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.4895196 = fieldWeight in 560, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=560)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The focus of this thesis is information use. Although a key concept in information behaviour, information use has received little attention from information science researchers. Studies of other key concepts such as information need and information seeking are dominant in information behaviour research. Information use is an area of interest to information professionals who rely on research outcomes to shape their practice. There are few empirical studies of how people actually use information that might guide and refine the development of information systems, products and services.

Content

A thesis submitted to the University of Technology, Sydney in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. - Vgl. unter: http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2100/309/2/02whole.pdf.

Theme

Information

0.0094332425 = product of:
  0.04716621 = sum of:
    0.04716621 = sum of:
      0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009472587 = score(doc=1746,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1746, 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=1746)
      0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037693623 = score(doc=1746,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1746, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1746)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Im Rahmen dieser Arbeit wird eine Vorgehensweise entwickelt, die die Fixierung auf das Wort und die damit verbundenen Schwächen überwindet. Sie gestattet die Extraktion von Informationen anhand der repräsentierten Begriffe und bildet damit die Basis einer inhaltlichen Texterschließung. Die anschließende prototypische Realisierung dient dazu, die Konzeption zu überprüfen sowie ihre Möglichkeiten und Grenzen abzuschätzen und zu bewerten. Arbeiten zum Information Extraction widmen sich fast ausschließlich dem Englischen, wobei insbesondere im Bereich der Named Entities sehr gute Ergebnisse erzielt werden. Deutlich schlechter sehen die Resultate für weniger regelmäßige Sprachen wie beispielsweise das Deutsche aus. Aus diesem Grund sowie praktischen Erwägungen wie insbesondere der Vertrautheit des Autors damit, soll diese Sprache primär Gegenstand der Untersuchungen sein. Die Lösung von einer engen Termorientierung bei gleichzeitiger Betonung der repräsentierten Begriffe legt nahe, dass nicht nur die verwendeten Worte sekundär werden sondern auch die verwendete Sprache. Um den Rahmen dieser Arbeit nicht zu sprengen wird bei der Untersuchung dieses Punktes das Augenmerk vor allem auf die mit unterschiedlichen Sprachen verbundenen Schwierigkeiten und Besonderheiten gelegt.

Date

22. 3.2015 9:17:30

0.008514981 = product of:
  0.042574905 = sum of:
    0.042574905 = sum of:
      0.011163551 = weight(_text_:information in 867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011163551 = score(doc=867,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 867, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=867)
      0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031411353 = score(doc=867,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 867, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=867)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Das Internet mit seinen ständig neuen Usern und seinem extremen Wachstum bringt viele neue Herausforderungen mit sich. Aufgrund dieses Wachstums bedienen sich die meisten Leute der Hilfe von Suchmaschinen um Inhalte innerhalb des Internet zu finden. Suchmaschinen nutzen für die Beantwortung der User-Anfragen Information Retrieval Techniken. Problematisch ist nur, dass traditionelle Information Retrieval (IR) Systeme für eine relativ kleine und zusammenhängende Sammlung von Dokumenten entwickelt wurden. Das Internet hingegen unterliegt einem ständigen Wachstum, schnellen Änderungsraten und es ist über geographisch verteilte Computer verteilt. Aufgrund dieser Tatsachen müssen die alten Techniken erweitert oder sogar neue IRTechniken entwickelt werden. Eine Suchmaschine die diesen Herausforderungen vergleichsweise erfolgreich entgegnet ist Google. Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es aufzuzeigen, wie Suchmaschinen funktionieren. Der Fokus liegt dabei auf der Suchmaschine Google. Kapitel 2 wird sich zuerst mit dem Aufbau von Suchmaschinen im Allgemeinen beschäftigen, wodurch ein grundlegendes Verständnis für die einzelnen Komponenten geschaffen werden soll. Im zweiten Teil des Kapitels wird darauf aufbauend ein Überblick über die Architektur von Google gegeben. Kapitel 3 und 4 dienen dazu, näher auf die beiden Komponenten Crawler und Indexer einzugehen, bei denen es sich um zentrale Elemente im Rahmen von Suchmaschinen handelt.

Pages

22 S

0.008234787 = product of:
  0.020586967 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 4040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=4040,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4040, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4040)
    0.011051352 = product of:
      0.022102704 = sum of:
        0.022102704 = weight(_text_:information in 4040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022102704 = score(doc=4040,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 4040, 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=4040)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Imprint

Potsdam : Fachhochschule, Institut für Information und Dokumentation

0.008071594 = product of:
  0.020178985 = sum of:
    0.010194 = weight(_text_:a in 5985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010194 = score(doc=5985,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.19066721 = fieldWeight in 5985, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5985)
    0.009984984 = product of:
      0.019969968 = sum of:
        0.019969968 = weight(_text_:information in 5985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019969968 = score(doc=5985,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.2453355 = fieldWeight in 5985, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5985)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This research explores, using a Grounded Theory approach, the question of how a particular group of undergraduate university students differentiates the values of retrieved information in a contemporary research process. Specifically it attempts to isolate and label those specific techniques, processes, formulae-both objective and subjective-that the students use to identify, prioritize, and successfully incorporate the most useful and valuable information into their research project. The research reviews the relevant literature covering the areas of: epistemology, knowledge acquisition, and cognitive learning theory; early relevance research; the movement from relevance models to information seeking in context; and the proximate recent research. A research methodology is articulated using a Grounded Theory approach, and the research process and research participants are fully explained and described. The findings of the research are set forth using three Thematic Sets- Traditional Relevance Measures; Structural Frames; and Metaphors: General and Ecological-using the actual discourse of the study participants, and a theoretical construct is advanced. Based on that construct, it can be theorized that identification and analysis of the metaphorical language that the particular students in this study used, both by way of general and ecological metaphors-their stories-about how they found, handled, and evaluated information, can be a very useful tool in understanding how the students identified, prioritized, and successfully incorporated the most useful and relevant information into their research projects. It also is argued that this type of metaphorical analysis could be useful in providing a bridging mechanism for a broader understanding of the relationships between traditional user relevance studies and the concepts of frame theory and sense-making. Finally, a corollary to Whitmire's original epistemological hypothesis is posited: Students who were more adept at using metaphors-either general or ecological-appeared more comfortable with handling contradictory information sources, and better able to articulate their valuing decisions. The research concludes with a discussion of the implications for both future research in the Library and Information Science field, and for the practice of both Library professionals and classroom instructors involved in assisting students involved in information valuing decision-making in a research process.

Theme

Information

0.007861036 = product of:
  0.039305177 = sum of:
    0.039305177 = sum of:
      0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 1482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007893822 = score(doc=1482,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1482, 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=1482)
      0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 1482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031411353 = score(doc=1482,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1482, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1482)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 5.2005 18:25:26

Theme

Information Resources Management

0.007861036 = product of:
  0.039305177 = sum of:
    0.039305177 = sum of:
      0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 2460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007893822 = score(doc=2460,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2460, 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=2460)
      0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 2460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031411353 = score(doc=2460,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2460, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2460)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Die ständig steigende Zahl an publizierter Information in immer neuen Formen verlangt besonders von Informations- und Dokumentationseinrichtungen immer präzisere Lösungen zur Erschließung dieser Informationen und ihrer benutzerfreundlichen Aufbereitung. Besonders im derzeitigen Zeitalter der Datenbanken und Online-Kataloge ist die Kombination von verbaler und klassifikatorischer Sacherschließung gefordert, ohne dabei die Verbindung zu den älteren, vielerorts noch (zumindest zusätzlich) in Verwendung befindlichen, Zettelkatalogen zu verlieren. Weltweit ist eine Vielzahl an verschiedenen Klassifikationen im Einsatz. Die Wahl der für eine Einrichtung passenden Klassifikation ist abhängig von ihrer thematischen und informationellen Ausrichtung, der Größe und Art der Bestände und nicht zuletzt von technischen und personellen Voraussetzungen. Auf Seiten der zu wählenden Klassifikation sind die Einfachheit der Handhabung für den Bibliothekar, die Verständlichkeit für den Benutzer, die Erweiterungsfähigkeit der Klassifikation durch das Aufkommen neuer Wissensgebiete und die Einbindung in informationelle Netze mit anderen Einrichtungen von entscheidender Bedeutung. In dieser Arbeit soll die Dewey Dezimalklassifikation (DDC) hinsichtlich dieser Punkte näher beleuchtet werden. Sie ist die weltweit am häufigsten benutzte Klassifikation. Etwa 200.000 Bibliotheken in 135 Ländern erschließen ihre Bestände mit diesem System. Sie liegt derzeit bereits in der 22. ungekürzten Auflage vor und wurde bisher in 30 Sprachen übersetzt. Eine deutsche Komplettübersetzung wird im Jahre 2005 erscheinen. Trotz teils heftig geführter Standardisierungsdebatten und Plänen für die Übernahme von amerikanischen Formalerschließungsregeln herrscht in Bezug auf die Sacherschließung unter deutschen Bibliotheken wenig Einigkeit. Die DDC ist in Deutschland und anderen europäischen Ländern kaum verbreitet, sieht von Großbritannien und von der Verwendung in Bibliografien ab. Diese Arbeit geht demzufolge auf die historischen Gründe dieser Entwicklung ein und wagt einen kurzen Ausblick in die Zukunft der Dezimalklassifikation.

0.0073474604 = product of:
  0.01836865 = sum of:
    0.009437811 = weight(_text_:a in 1742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009437811 = score(doc=1742,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 1742, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1742)
    0.0089308405 = product of:
      0.017861681 = sum of:
        0.017861681 = weight(_text_:information in 1742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017861681 = score(doc=1742,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 1742, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

While being theoretically so widely available, information can be restricted from a more general use by linguistic barriers. The linguistic aspects of the information languages and particularly the chances of an enhanced access to information by means of multilingual access facilities will make the substance of this thesis. The main problem of this research is thus to demonstrate that information retrieval can be improved by using multilingual thesaurus terms based on an intermediate or switching language to search with. Universal classification systems in general can play the role of switching languages for reasons dealt with in the forthcoming pages. The Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) in particular is the classification system used as example of a switching language for our objectives. The question may arise: why a universal classification system and not another thesaurus? Because the UDC like most of the classification systems uses symbols. Therefore, it is language independent and the problems of compatibility between such a thesaurus and different other thesauri in different languages are avoided. Another question may still arise? Why not then, assign running numbers to the descriptors in a thesaurus and make a switching language out of the resulting enumerative system? Because of some other characteristics of the UDC: hierarchical structure and terminological richness, consistency and control. One big problem to find an answer to is: can a thesaurus be made having as a basis a classification system in any and all its parts? To what extent this question can be given an affirmative answer? This depends much on the attributes of the universal classification system which can be favourably used to this purpose. Examples of different situations will be given and discussed upon beginning with those classes of UDC which are best fitted for building a thesaurus structure out of them (classes which are both hierarchical and faceted)...

Content

Inhalt: INFORMATION LANGUAGES: A LINGUISTIC APPROACH MULTILINGUAL ASPECTS IN INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL COMPATIBILITY AND CONVERTIBILITY OF INFORMATION LANGUAGES CURRENT TRENDS IN MULTILINGUAL ACCESS BUILDING UDC-BASED MULTILINGUAL THESAURI ONLINE APPLICATIONS OF THE UDC-BASED MULTILINGUAL THESAURI THE IMPACT OF SPECIFICITY ON THE RETRIEVAL POWER OF A UDC-BASED MULTILINGUAL THESAURUS FINAL REMARKS AND GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Proefschrift voorgelegd tot het behalen van de graad van doctor in de Taal- en Letterkunde aan de Universiteit Antwerpen. - Vgl.: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1862/.

0.0071167396 = product of:
  0.017791849 = sum of:
    0.009437811 = weight(_text_:a in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009437811 = score(doc=1154,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 1154, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1154)
    0.008354037 = product of:
      0.016708074 = sum of:
        0.016708074 = weight(_text_:information in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016708074 = score(doc=1154,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.20526241 = fieldWeight in 1154, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In this thesis, we will present methods for introducing ontologies in information retrieval. The main hypothesis is that the inclusion of conceptual knowledge such as ontologies in the information retrieval process can contribute to the solution of major problems currently found in information retrieval. This utilization of ontologies has a number of challenges. Our focus is on the use of similarity measures derived from the knowledge about relations between concepts in ontologies, the recognition of semantic information in texts and the mapping of this knowledge into the ontologies in use, as well as how to fuse together the ideas of ontological similarity and ontological indexing into a realistic information retrieval scenario. To achieve the recognition of semantic knowledge in a text, shallow natural language processing is used during indexing that reveals knowledge to the level of noun phrases. Furthermore, we briefly cover the identification of semantic relations inside and between noun phrases, as well as discuss which kind of problems are caused by an increase in compoundness with respect to the structure of concepts in the evaluation of queries. Measuring similarity between concepts based on distances in the structure of the ontology is discussed. In addition, a shared nodes measure is introduced and, based on a set of intuitive similarity properties, compared to a number of different measures. In this comparison the shared nodes measure appears to be superior, though more computationally complex. Some of the major problems of shared nodes which relate to the way relations differ with respect to the degree they bring the concepts they connect closer are discussed. A generalized measure called weighted shared nodes is introduced to deal with these problems. Finally, the utilization of concept similarity in query evaluation is discussed. A semantic expansion approach that incorporates concept similarity is introduced and a generalized fuzzy set retrieval model that applies expansion during query evaluation is presented. While not commonly used in present information retrieval systems, it appears that the fuzzy set model comprises the flexibility needed when generalizing to an ontology-based retrieval model and, with the introduction of a hierarchical fuzzy aggregation principle, compound concepts can be handled in a straightforward and natural manner.

Content

A dissertation Presented to the Faculties of Roskilde University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Vgl. unter: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.117.987 oder http://coitweb.uncc.edu/~ras/RS/Onto-Retrieval.pdf.

0.0070185377 = product of:
  0.017546345 = sum of:
    0.008615503 = weight(_text_:a in 2281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008615503 = score(doc=2281,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 2281, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2281)
    0.0089308405 = product of:
      0.017861681 = sum of:
        0.017861681 = weight(_text_:information in 2281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017861681 = score(doc=2281,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 2281, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

An information system like the Web is a continuously evolving system consisting of multiple heterogeneous information sources, covering a wide domain of discourse, and a huge number of users (human or software) with diverse characteristics and needs, that produce and consume information. The challenge nowadays is to build a scalable information infrastructure enabling the effective, accurate, content based retrieval of information, in a way that adapts to the characteristics and interests of the users. The aim of this work is to propose formally sound methods for building such an information network based on ontologies which are widely used and are easy to grasp by ordinary Web users. The main results of this work are: - A novel scheme for indexing and retrieving objects according to multiple aspects or facets. The proposed scheme is a faceted scheme enriched with a method for specifying the combinations of terms that are valid. We give a model-theoretic interpretation to this model and we provide mechanisms for inferring the valid combinations of terms. This inference service can be exploited for preventing errors during the indexing process, which is very important especially in the case where the indexing is done collaboratively by many users, and for deriving "complete" navigation trees suitable for browsing through the Web. The proposed scheme has several advantages over the hierarchical classification schemes currently employed by Web catalogs, namely, conceptual clarity (it is easier to understand), compactness (it takes less space), and scalability (the update operations can be formulated more easily and be performed more effciently). - A exible and effecient model for building mediators over ontology based information sources. The proposed mediators support several modes of query translation and evaluation which can accommodate various application needs and levels of answer quality. The proposed model can be used for providing users with customized views of Web catalogs. It can also complement the techniques for building mediators over relational sources so as to support approximate translation of partially ordered domain values.

0.0068851607 = product of:
  0.017212901 = sum of:
    0.010897844 = weight(_text_:a in 4569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010897844 = score(doc=4569,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4569, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4569)
    0.006315058 = product of:
      0.012630116 = sum of:
        0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 4569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012630116 = score(doc=4569,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4569, 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=4569)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The results of this thesis are intended to support the information architect in designing a solution for improved search in a corporate environment. Specifically we have examined the type of search problems that require a domain model to enhance the search process. There are several approaches to modeling a domain. We have considered 3 different types of domain modeling schemes; taxonomy, thesaurus and ontology. The intention is to support the information architect in making an informed choice between one or more of these schemes. In our opinion the main criteria for this choice are the modeling characteristics of a scheme and the suitability for application in the search process. The second chapter is a discussion of modeling characteristics of each scheme, followed by a comparison between them. This should give an information architect an idea of which aspects of a domain can be modeled with each scheme. What is missing here is an indication of the effort required to model a domain with each scheme. There are too many factors that influence the amount of required effort, ranging from measurable factors like domain size and resource characteristics to cultural matters such as the willingness to share knowledge and the existence of a project champion in the team to keep the project running. The third chapter shows what role domain models can play in each part of the search process. This gives an idea of the problems that domain models can solve. We have split the search process into individual parts to show that domain models can be applied very differently in the process. The fourth chapter makes recommendations about the suitability of each individualdomain modeling scheme for improving search. Each scheme has particular characteristics that make it especially suitable for a domain or a search problem. In the appendix each case study is described in detail. These descriptions are intended to serve as a benchmark. The current problem of the enterprise can be compared to those described to see which case study is most similar, which solution was chosen, which problems arose and how they were dealt with. An important issue that we have not touched upon in this thesis is that of maintenance. The real problems of a domain model are revealed when it is applied in a search system and its deficits and wrong assumptions become clear. Adaptation and maintenance are always required. Unfortunately we have not been able to glean sufficient information about maintenance issues from our case studies to draw any meaningful conclusions.

0.0068555474 = product of:
  0.017138869 = sum of:
    0.009829085 = weight(_text_:a in 4415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009829085 = score(doc=4415,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1838419 = fieldWeight in 4415, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4415)
    0.0073097823 = product of:
      0.014619565 = sum of:
        0.014619565 = weight(_text_:information in 4415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014619565 = score(doc=4415,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1796046 = fieldWeight in 4415, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4415)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This work proposes an approach which is intended to meet the particular challenges of Medical Language Processing, in particular medical information retrieval. At its core lies a new type of dictionary, in which the entries are equivalence classes of subwords, i.e., semantically minimal units. These equivalence classes capture intralingual as well as interlingual synonymy. As equivalence classes abstract away from subtle particularities within and between languages and reference to them is realized via a language-independent conceptual system, they form an interlingua. In this work, the theoretical foundations of this approach are elaborated on. Furthermore, design considerations of applications based on the subword methodology are drawn up and showcase implementations are evaluated in detail. Starting with the introduction of Medical Linguistics as a field of active research in Chapter two, its consideration as a domain separated form general linguistics is motivated. In particular, morphological phenomena inherent to medical language are figured in more detail, which leads to an alternative view on medical terms and the introduction of the notion of subwords. Chapter three describes the formal foundation of subwords and the underlying linguistic declarative as well as procedural knowledge. An implementation of the subword model for the medical domain, the MorphoSaurus system, is presented in Chapter four. Emphasis will be given on the multilingual aspect of the proposed approach, including English, German, and Portuguese. The automatic acquisition of (medical) subwords for other languages (Spanish, French, and Swedish), and their integration in already available resources is described in the fifth Chapter.
The proper handling of acronyms plays a crucial role in medical texts, e.g. in patient records, as well as in scientific literature. Chapter six presents an approach, in which acronyms are automatically acquired from (bio-) medical literature. Furthermore, acronyms and their definitions in different languages are linked to each other using the MorphoSaurus text processing system. Automatic word sense disambiguation is still one of the most challenging tasks in Natural Language Processing. In Chapter seven, cross-lingual considerations lead to a new methodology for automatic disambiguation applied to subwords. Beginning with Chapter eight, a series of applications based onMorphoSaurus are introduced. Firstly, the implementation of the subword approach within a crosslanguage information retrieval setting for the medical domain is described and evaluated on standard test document collections. In Chapter nine, this methodology is extended to multilingual information retrieval in the Web, for which user queries are translated into target languages based on the segmentation into subwords and their interlingual mappings. The cross-lingual, automatic assignment of document descriptors to documents is the topic of Chapter ten. A large-scale evaluation of a heuristic, as well as a statistical algorithm is carried out using a prominent medical thesaurus as a controlled vocabulary. In Chapter eleven, it will be shown how MorphoSaurus can be used to map monolingual, lexical resources across different languages. As a result, a large multilingual medical lexicon with high coverage and complete lexical information is built and evaluated against a comparable, already available and commonly used lexical repository for the medical domain. Chapter twelve sketches a few applications based on MorphoSaurus. The generality and applicability of the subword approach to other domains is outlined, and proof-of-concepts in real-world scenarios are presented. Finally, Chapter thirteen recapitulates the most important aspects of MorphoSaurus and the potential benefit of its employment in medical information systems is carefully assessed, both for medical experts in their everyday life, but also with regard to health care consumers and their existential information needs.

Source

Subword indexing, lexical learning and word sense disambiguation for medical crosslanguage information retrieval

0.0065874713 = product of:
  0.016468678 = sum of:
    0.009632425 = weight(_text_:a in 3222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009632425 = score(doc=3222,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3222, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3222)
    0.006836252 = product of:
      0.013672504 = sum of:
        0.013672504 = weight(_text_:information in 3222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013672504 = score(doc=3222,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 3222, 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=3222)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The use of thesaurus-based indexing is a common approach for increasing the performance of information retrieval. In this thesis, we examine the suitability of a thesaurus for a given set of information and evaluate improvements of existing thesauri to get better search results. On this area, we focus on two aspects: 1. We demonstrate an analysis of the indexing results achieved by an automatic document indexer and the involved thesaurus. 2. We propose a method for thesaurus evaluation which is based on a combination of statistical measures and appropriate visualization techniques that support the detection of potential problems in a thesaurus. In this chapter, we give an overview of the context of our work. Next, we briefly outline the basics of thesaurus-based information retrieval and describe the Collexis Engine that was used for our experiments. In Chapter 3, we describe two experiments in automatically indexing documents in the areas of medicine and economics with corresponding thesauri and compare the results to available manual annotations. Chapter 4 describes methods for assessing thesauri and visualizing the result in terms of a treemap. We depict examples of interesting observations supported by the method and show that we actually find critical problems. We conclude with a discussion of open questions and future research in Chapter 5.