Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.064628996 = product of:
  0.16157249 = sum of:
    0.12429313 = weight(_text_:index in 2093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12429313 = score(doc=2093,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.6689808 = fieldWeight in 2093, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2093)
    0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 2093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03727935 = score(doc=2093,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 2093, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2093)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The frame structure matches the profile of features desirable in a syntagmatic relationship system and should be incorporated as the basic structural unit in index languages. The construction of frame-based index languages is discussed. Selected findings based on the case study analysis of implementing a New Testament-oriented frame-based indexing language are presented

0.025116233 = product of:
  0.12558116 = sum of:
    0.12558116 = weight(_text_:index in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12558116 = score(doc=3144,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.67591333 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Effective use of syntagmatic relationships in index languages has suffered from inaccurate or incomplete characterization in both linguistics and information science. A number of 'myths' about syntagmatic relationships are debunked: the exclusivity of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships, linearity as a defining characteristic of syntagmatic relationships, the restriction of syntagmatic relationships to surface linguistic units, the limitation of syntagmatic relationship benefits in document retrieval to precision, and the general irrelevance of syntagmatic relationships for document retrieval. None of the mechanisms currently used with index languages is powerful enough to achieve the levels of precision and recall that the expression of conceptual syntagmatic relationships is in theory capable of. New designs for expressing these relationships in index languages will need to take into account such characteristics as their semantic nature, systematicity, generalizability and constituent nature

0.0215282 = product of:
  0.107641 = sum of:
    0.107641 = weight(_text_:index in 2104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.107641 = score(doc=2104,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5793543 = fieldWeight in 2104, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2104)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.0107641 = product of:
  0.0538205 = sum of:
    0.0538205 = weight(_text_:index in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0538205 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Develops a framework for evaluating the indexing needs of the humanities with reference to 4 set of contrasts: user-oriented vs. document oriented indexing; subject indexing vs. attribute indexing; scientific writing vs. humanistic writing; and topical relevance vs. logical relevance vs. evidential relevance vs. aesthetic relevance. The indexing needs of the humanities range broadly across these contrasts. Established the centrality of relationship to the communication of indexable matter and examines the advantages and disadvantages of means used for their expression in both natural languages and index languages. The use of a relational structure, such as a frame, is shown to represent perhaps the best available option. Illustrates where the use of relational structures in humanities indexing would help meet some of the needs previously identified. The adoption of frame-based indexing in the humanities might substantially improve the retrieval of its literature

0.007908144 = product of:
  0.03954072 = sum of:
    0.03954072 = weight(_text_:system in 2724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03954072 = score(doc=2724,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 2724, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2724)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study establishes 3 predominant cognitive models of information and the information transfer process manifest in the literature of library and information science, based on a linguistic analysis of phrases incoporating the word 'information' from a random sample of abstracts in the LISA database. The direct communication (DC) and indirect communication (IC) models (drawn from Reddy's frameworks of metalinguistic usage) adopt the perspective of the information system; the information-seeking (IS) model takes the viewpoint of the information user. 2 disturbing findings are presented: 1. core elements of the DC and IC models are more weakly supported by the data than are most of the peripheral elements; and 2. even though the IS model presents the information user's perspective, the data emphasise the role of the information system. These findings suggest respectively that the field lacks a coherent model of information transfer per se and that our model of information retrieval is mechanistic, oblivious to the cognitive models of end users

0.0055919024 = product of:
  0.027959513 = sum of:
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 3722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=3722,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 3722, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3722)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Presents conceptual background. Since topicality is a major factor in relevance, it is crucial to identify the range of relationship types that occur between the topics of user needs and the topics of texts relevant to those needs. Assumes that a single relationship type obtains i.e. that the 2 topics match. Evidence from the analysis of recall failures, citation analysis, and knowledge synthesis suggests otherwise: topical relevance relationships are not limited to topic matching relationships; to the contrary, in certain circumstances they are quite likely not to be matching relationships. Relationships are 1 of the 2 fundamental components of human conceptual systems. Attempts to classify them usually accept a distinction between relationships that occur by virute of the combination of component units (syntagmatic relationships) and relationships that are bulit into the language system (paradigmatic relationships). Given the variety of relationship types previously identified, empirical research is needed to determine the subset that actually account for topical relevance