Search (146 results, page 1 of 8)

0.102585636 = product of:
  0.12823205 = sum of:
    0.028243875 = weight(_text_:context in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028243875 = score(doc=1633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.16027321 = fieldWeight in 1633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1633)
    0.07020201 = weight(_text_:index in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07020201 = score(doc=1633,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.37784708 = fieldWeight in 1633, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1633)
    0.02306542 = weight(_text_:system in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02306542 = score(doc=1633,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17224117 = fieldWeight in 1633, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1633)
    0.0067207436 = product of:
      0.02016223 = sum of:
        0.02016223 = weight(_text_:22 in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02016223 = score(doc=1633,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1633, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1633)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to improve the conceptual-based search by incorporating structural ontological information such as concepts and relations. Generally, Semantic-based information retrieval aims to identify relevant information based on the meanings of the query terms or on the context of the terms and the performance of semantic information retrieval is carried out through standard measures-precision and recall. Higher precision leads to the (meaningful) relevant documents obtained and lower recall leads to the less coverage of the concepts. Design/methodology/approach - In this paper, the authors enhance the existing ontology-based indexing proposed by Kohler et al., by incorporating sibling information to the index. The index designed by Kohler et al., contains only super and sub-concepts from the ontology. In addition, in our approach, we focus on two tasks; query expansion and ranking of the expanded queries, to improve the efficiency of the ontology-based search. The aforementioned tasks make use of ontological concepts, and relations existing between those concepts so as to obtain semantically more relevant search results for a given query. Findings - The proposed ontology-based indexing technique is investigated by analysing the coverage of concepts that are being populated in the index. Here, we introduce a new measure called index enhancement measure, to estimate the coverage of ontological concepts being indexed. We have evaluated the ontology-based search for the tourism domain with the tourism documents and tourism-specific ontology. The comparison of search results based on the use of ontology "with and without query expansion" is examined to estimate the efficiency of the proposed query expansion task. The ranking is compared with the ORank system to evaluate the performance of our ontology-based search. From these analyses, the ontology-based search results shows better recall when compared to the other concept-based search systems. The mean average precision of the ontology-based search is found to be 0.79 and the recall is found to be 0.65, the ORank system has the mean average precision of 0.62 and the recall is found to be 0.51, while the concept-based search has the mean average precision of 0.56 and the recall is found to be 0.42. Practical implications - When the concept is not present in the domain-specific ontology, the concept cannot be indexed. When the given query term is not available in the ontology then the term-based results are retrieved. Originality/value - In addition to super and sub-concepts, we incorporate the concepts present in same level (siblings) to the ontological index. The structural information from the ontology is determined for the query expansion. The ranking of the documents depends on the type of the query (single concept query, multiple concept queries and concept with relation queries) and the ontological relations that exists in the query and the documents. With this ontological structural information, the search results showed us better coverage of concepts with respect to the query.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.045922782 = product of:
  0.11480696 = sum of:
    0.10705639 = weight(_text_:context in 276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10705639 = score(doc=276,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.6075041 = fieldWeight in 276, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=276)
    0.0077505717 = product of:
      0.023251714 = sum of:
        0.023251714 = weight(_text_:29 in 276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023251714 = score(doc=276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 276, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=276)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Context plays an important role in a number of domains where reasoning intervenes as in understanding, interpretation, diagnosis, etc. The reason is that reasoning activities heavily rely on a background (or experience) that is generally not made explicit and that gives a contextual dimension to knowledge. On the Web in December 1996, AItaVista gave more than 710000 pages containing the word context, when concept gives only 639000 references. A clear definition of this word stays to be found. There are several formal definitions of this concept (references are given in Brézillon, 1996): a set of preferences and/or beliefs, an infinite and only partially known collection of assumptions, a list of attributes, the product of an interpretation, possible worlds, assumptions under which a statement is true or false. One faces the same situation at the programming level: a collection of context schemas; a path in information retrieval; slots in object-oriented languages; a special, buffer-like data structure; a window on the screen, buttons which are functional customisable and shareable; an interpreter which controls the system's activity; the characteristics of the situation and the goals of the knowledge use; or entities (things or events) related in a certain way that permits to listen what is said and what is not said. Context is often assimilated at a set of restrictions (e.g., preconditions) that limit access to parts of the applications. The first works considering context explicitly are in Natural Language. Researchers in this domain focus on the linguistic context, sometimes associated with other types of contexts as: semantic context, cognitive context, physical and perceptual context, and social context (Bunt, 1997).

Date

21. 3.2002 19:29:27

0.045458954 = product of:
  0.11364739 = sum of:
    0.080696784 = weight(_text_:context in 2579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.080696784 = score(doc=2579,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.45792344 = fieldWeight in 2579, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2579)
    0.032950602 = weight(_text_:system in 2579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032950602 = score(doc=2579,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 2579, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2579)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to see how relevance feedback could be used to build and adjust profiles to improve the performance of filtering systems. Data was collected during the system interaction of 18 graduate students with SIFTER (Smart Information Filtering Technology for Electronic Resources), a filtering system that ranks incoming information based on users' profiles. The data set came from a collection of 6000 records concerning consumer health. In the first phase of the study, three different modes of profile acquisition were compared. The explicit mode allowed users to directly specify the profile; the implicit mode utilized relevance feedback to create and refine the profile; and the combined mode allowed users to initialize the profile and to continuously refine it using relevance feedback. Filtering performance, measured in terms of Normalized Precision, showed that the three approaches were significantly different ( [small alpha, Greek] =0.05 and p =0.012). The explicit mode of profile acquisition consistently produced superior results. Exclusive reliance on relevance feedback in the implicit mode resulted in inferior performance. The low performance obtained by the implicit acquisition mode motivated the second phase of the study, which aimed to clarify the role of context in relevance feedback judgments. An inductive content analysis of thinking aloud protocols showed dimensions that were highly situational, establishing the importance context plays in feedback relevance assessments. Results suggest the need for better representation of documents, profiles, and relevance feedback mechanisms that incorporate dimensions identified in this research.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: "Issues of context in information retrieval (IR)"

0.045408536 = product of:
  0.11352134 = sum of:
    0.09022175 = weight(_text_:context in 2589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09022175 = score(doc=2589,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.511974 = fieldWeight in 2589, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2589)
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 2589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=2589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 2589, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2589)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The emergence of general audience digital libraries (GADLs) defines a context that represents a hybrid of both "traditional" IR, using primarily bibliographic resources provided by database vendors, and "popular" IR, exemplified by public search systems available on the World Wide Web. Findings of a study investigating end-user searching and response to a GADL are reported. Data collected from a Web-based end-user survey and data logs of resource usage for a Web-based GADL were analyzed for user characteristics, patterns of access and use, and user feedback. Cross-tabulations using respondent demographics revealed several key differences in how the system was used and valued by users of different age groups. Older users valued the service more than younger users and engaged in different searching and viewing behaviors. The GADL more closely resembles traditional retrieval systems in terms of content and purpose of use, but is more similar to popular IR systems in terms of user behavior and accessibility. A model that defines the dual context of the GADL environment is derived from the data analysis and existing IR models in general and other specific contexts. The authors demonstrate the distinguishing characteristics of this IR context, and discuss implications for the development and evaluation of future GADLs to accommodate a variety of user needs and expectations.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: "Issues of context in information retrieval (IR)"

0.044654038 = product of:
  0.074423395 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=1323,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
    0.022425208 = weight(_text_:index in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022425208 = score(doc=1323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.12069881 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
    0.011649796 = weight(_text_:system in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011649796 = score(doc=1323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.08699492 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The Turn analyzes the research of information seeking and retrieval (IS&R) and proposes a new direction of integrating research in these two areas: the fields should turn off their separate and narrow paths and construct a new avenue of research. An essential direction for this avenue is context as given in the subtitle Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context. Other essential themes in the book include: IS&R research models, frameworks and theories; search and works tasks and situations in context; interaction between humans and machines; information acquisition, relevance and information use; research design and methodology based on a structured set of explicit variables - all set into the holistic cognitive approach. The present monograph invites the reader into a construction project - there is much research to do for a contextual understanding of IS&R. The Turn represents a wide-ranging perspective of IS&R by providing a novel unique research framework, covering both individual and social aspects of information behavior, including the generation, searching, retrieval and use of information. Regarding traditional laboratory information retrieval research, the monograph proposes the extension of research toward actors, search and work tasks, IR interaction and utility of information. Regarding traditional information seeking research, it proposes the extension toward information access technology and work task contexts. The Turn is the first synthesis of research in the broad area of IS&R ranging from systems oriented laboratory IR research to social science oriented information seeking studies. TOC:Introduction.- The Cognitive Framework for Information.- The Development of Information Seeking Research.- Systems-Oriented Information Retrieval.- Cognitive and User-Oriented Information Retrieval.- The Integrated IS&R Research Framework.- Implications of the Cognitive Framework for IS&R.- Towards a Research Program.- Conclusion.- Definitions.- References.- Index.

Footnote

Rez. in: Mitt. VÖB 59(2006) H.2, S.81-83 (O. Oberhauser): "Mit diesem Band haben zwei herausragende Vertreter der europäischen Informationswissenschaft, die Professoren Peter Ingwersen (Kopenhagen) und Kalervo Järvelin (Tampere) ein Werk vorgelegt, das man vielleicht dereinst als ihr opus magnum bezeichnen wird. Mich würde dies nicht überraschen, denn die Autoren unternehmen hier den ambitionierten Versuch, zwei informations wissenschaftliche Forschungstraditionen, die einander bisher in eher geringem Ausmass begegneten, unter einem gesamtheitlichen kognitiven Ansatz zu vereinen - das primär im sozialwissenschaftlichen Bereich verankerte Forschungsgebiet "Information Seeking and Retrieval" (IS&R) und das vorwiegend im Informatikbereich angesiedelte "Information Retrieval" (IR). Dabei geht es ihnen auch darum, den seit etlichen Jahren zwar dominierenden, aber auch als zu individualistisch kritisierten kognitiven Ansatz so zu erweitern, dass technologische, verhaltensbezogene und kooperative Aspekte in kohärenter Weise berücksichtigt werden. Dies geschieht auf folgende Weise in neun Kapiteln: - Zunächst werden die beiden "Lager" - die an Systemen und Laborexperimenten orientierte IR-Tradition und die an Benutzerfragen orientierte IS&R-Fraktion - einander gegenübergestellt und einige zentrale Begriffe geklärt. - Im zweiten Kapitel erfolgt eine ausführliche Darstellung der kognitiven Richtung der Informationswissenschaft, insbesondere hinsichtlich des Informationsbegriffes. - Daran schliesst sich ein Überblick über die bisherige Forschung zu "Information Seeking" (IS) - eine äusserst brauchbare Einführung in die Forschungsfragen und Modelle, die Forschungsmethodik sowie die in diesem Bereich offenen Fragen, z.B. die aufgrund der einseitigen Ausrichtung des Blickwinkels auf den Benutzer mangelnde Betrachtung der Benutzer-System-Interaktion. - In analoger Weise wird im vierten Kapitel die systemorientierte IRForschung in einem konzentrierten Überblick vorgestellt, in dem es sowohl um das "Labormodell" als auch Ansätze wie die Verarbeitung natürlicher Sprache und Expertensysteme geht. Aspekte wie Relevanz, Anfragemodifikation und Performanzmessung werden ebenso angesprochen wie die Methodik - von den ersten Laborexperimenten bis zu TREC und darüber hinaus.

0.04400172 = product of:
  0.0733362 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 2215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=2215,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 2215, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2215)
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 2215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=2215,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 2215, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2215)
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 2215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=2215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2215, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2215)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore query expansion via conceptual distance in thesaurus indexed collections Design/methodology/approach - An extract of the National Museum of Science and Industry's collections database, indexed with the Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT), was the dataset for the research. The system architecture and algorithms for semantic closeness and the matching function are outlined. Standalone and web interfaces are described and formative qualitative user studies are discussed. One user session is discussed in detail, together with a scenario based on a related public inquiry. Findings are set in context of the literature on thesaurus-based query expansion. This paper discusses the potential of query expansion techniques using the semantic relationships in a faceted thesaurus. Findings - Thesaurus-assisted retrieval systems have potential for multi-concept descriptors, permitting very precise queries and indexing. However, indexer and searcher may differ in terminology judgments and there may not be any exactly matching results. The integration of semantic closeness in the matching function permits ranked results for multi-concept queries in thesaurus-indexed applications. An in-memory representation of the thesaurus semantic network allows a combination of automatic and interactive control of expansion and control of expansion on individual query terms. Originality/value - The application of semantic expansion to browsing may be useful in interface options where thesaurus structure is hidden.

Date

30. 7.2011 16:07:29

0.043949433 = product of:
  0.07324905 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 5697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=5697,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 5697, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5697)
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 5697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=5697,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 5697, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5697)
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 5697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=5697,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5697, 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=5697)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The performance of 8 ranking algorithms was evaluated with respect to their effectiveness in ranking terms for query expansion. The evaluation was conducted within an investigation of interactive query expansion and relevance feedback in a real operational environment. Focuses on the identification of algorithms that most effectively take cognizance of user preferences. user choices (i.e. the terms selected by the searchers for the query expansion search) provided the yardstick for the evaluation of the 8 ranking algorithms. This methodology introduces a user oriented approach in evaluating ranking algorithms for query expansion in contrast to the standard, system oriented approaches. Similarities in the performance of the 8 algorithms and the ways these algorithms rank terms were the main focus of this evaluation. The findings demonstrate that the r-lohi, wpq, enim, and porter algorithms have similar performance in bringing good terms to the top of a ranked list of terms for query expansion. However, further evaluation of the algorithms in different (e.g. full text) environments is needed before these results can be generalized beyond the context of the present study

Date

22. 2.1996 13:14:10

0.041047435 = product of:
  0.10261859 = sum of:
    0.05648775 = weight(_text_:context in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05648775 = score(doc=1318,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32054642 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
    0.04613084 = weight(_text_:system in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04613084 = score(doc=1318,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.34448233 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A project to design a graphical user interface for the OKAPI online catalogue search system which uses the basic term weighting probabilistic search engine. Presents a research context of the project with a discussion of interface and functionality issues relating to the design of OPACs. Describes the design methodology and evaluation methodology. Presents the preliminary results of the field trial evaluation. Considers problems encountered in the field trial and discusses contributory factors to the effectiveness of interactive query expansion. Highlights the tension between usability and functionality in highly interactive retrieval and suggests further areas of research

0.039664235 = product of:
  0.09916059 = sum of:
    0.060522582 = weight(_text_:context in 42) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060522582 = score(doc=42,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.34344256 = fieldWeight in 42, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=42)
    0.038638007 = weight(_text_:system in 42) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038638007 = score(doc=42,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.28852955 = fieldWeight in 42, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=42)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

Das Buch ist in die Abschnitte Invited Papers (1 Beitrag, 1 Abstract), Representing Context (3 Beiträge), Context and Relevance in Information Seeking (3), Context and Information (3), Contextualised Information Seeking (3), Agendas for Context (3), Context and Documents (2) und Workshops (2 Ankündigungstexte) gegliedert und enthält ein simples Autoren-, jedoch kein Sachregister. Die Autoren der Beiträge stammen mit einigen Ausnahmen (Italien, Frankreich, Russland) aus den angelsächsischen und skandinavischen Ländern.

Footnote

Rez. in: Mitt. VÖB 59(2006) H.3, S.100-103 (O. Oberhauser): "Dieses als Band 3507 der bekannten, seit 1973 erscheinenden Springer-Serie Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) publizierte Buch versammelt die Vorträge der 5. Tagung "Conceptions of Library and Information Science". CoLIS hat sich in den letzten anderthalb Jahrzehnten als internationales Forum für die Präsentation und Rezeption von Forschung auf den Fachgebieten Informatik und Informationswissenschaft etabliert. Auf die 1992 in Tampere (Finnland) anlässlich des damals 20jährigen Bestehens des dortigen Instituts für Informationswissenschaft abgehaltene erste Tagung folgten weitere in Kopenhagen (1996), Dubrovnik (1999) und Seattle, WA (2002). Die zuletzt an der Strathclyde University in Glasgow (2005) veranstaltete Konferenz war dem Thema "Context" im Rahmen der informationsbezogenen Forschung gewidmet, einem komplexen, dynamischen und multidimensionalen Begriff von grosser Bedeutung für das Verhalten und die Interaktion von Mensch und Maschine. . . .
Mehrere Beiträge befassen sich mit dem Problem der Relevanz. Erica Cosijn und Theo Bothma (Pretoria) argumentieren, dass für das Benutzerverhalten neben der thematischen Relevanz auch verschiedene andere Relevanzdimensionen eine Rolle spielen und schlagen auf der Basis eines (abermals auf Ingwersen zurückgehenden) erweiterten Relevanzmodells vor, dass IR-Systeme die Möglichkeit zur Abgabe auch kognitiver, situativer und sozio-kognitiver Relevanzurteile bieten sollten. Elaine Toms et al. (Kanada) berichten von einer Studie, in der versucht wurde, die schon vor 30 Jahren von Tefko Saracevic3 erstellten fünf Relevanzdimensionen (kognitiv, motivational, situativ, thematisch und algorithmisch) zu operationalisieren und anhand von Recherchen mit einer Web-Suchmaschine zu untersuchen. Die Ergebnisse zeigten, dass sich diese fünf Dimensionen in drei Typen vereinen lassen, die Benutzer, System und Aufgabe repräsentieren. Von einer völlig anderen Seite nähern sich Olof Sundin und Jenny Johannison (Boras, Schweden) der Relevanzthematik, indem sie einen kommunikationsorientierten, neo-pragmatistischen Ansatz (nach Richard Rorty) wählen, um Informationssuche und Relevanz zu analysieren, und dabei auch auf das Werk von Michel Foucault zurückgreifen. Weitere interessante Artikel befassen sich mit Bradford's Law of Scattering (Hjørland & Nicolaisen), Information Sharing and Timing (Widén-Wulff & Davenport), Annotations as Context for Searching Documents (Agosti & Ferro), sowie dem Nutzen von neuen Informationsquellen wie Web Links, Newsgroups und Blogs für die sozial- und informationswissenschaftliche Forschung (Thelwall & Wouters). In Summe liegt hier ein interessantes und anspruchsvolles Buch vor - inhaltlich natürlich nicht gerade einheitlich und geschlossen, doch dies darf man bei einem Konferenzband ohnedies nicht erwarten. Manche der abgedruckten Beiträge sind sicher nicht einfach zu lesen, lohnen aber die Mühe. Auch für Praktiker aus Bibliothek und Information ist einiges dabei, sofern sie sich für die wissenschaftliche Basis ihrer Tätigkeit interessieren. Fachlich einschlägige Spezial- und grössere Allgemeinbibliotheken sollten das Werk daher unbedingt führen.
Context: Nature, Impact and Role ist ein typischer LNCS-Softcover-Band in sauberem TeX-Design und mutet mit knapp 50 Euro zwar nicht als wohlfeil an, liegt aber angesichts heutiger Buchpreise im Rahmen. Die Zahl der Tippfehler hält sich in Grenzen, ist jedoch gelegentlich peinlich (z.B. wenn man auf S. 2, noch dazu im Fettdruck, "Tractaus" anstelle von "Tractatus" lesen muss). Als Kuriosum am Rande sei erwähnt, dass die einleitend abgedruckte Namensliste des CoLIS-Programmkomitees, immerhin rund 50 Personen, vom Computer fein säuberlich sortiert wurde - dies allerdings nach dem Alphabet der Vornamen der Komiteemitglieder, was offenbar weder den Herausgebern noch dem Verlag aufgefallen ist."

RSWK

Informationssystem / Navigieren / Kontextbezogenes System / Kongress / Glasgow <2005>
Information Retrieval / Kontextbezogenes System / Kongress / Glasgow <2005>
Information-Retrieval-System / Kontextbezogenes System / Kongress / Glasgow <2005>
Elektronische Bibliothek / Information Retrieval / Relevanz-Feedback / Kontextbezogenes System / Kongress / Glasgow <2005>

Subject

Informationssystem / Navigieren / Kontextbezogenes System / Kongress / Glasgow <2005>
Information Retrieval / Kontextbezogenes System / Kongress / Glasgow <2005>
Information-Retrieval-System / Kontextbezogenes System / Kongress / Glasgow <2005>
Elektronische Bibliothek / Information Retrieval / Relevanz-Feedback / Kontextbezogenes System / Kongress / Glasgow <2005>

0.039539397 = product of:
  0.06589899 = sum of:
    0.020174196 = weight(_text_:context in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020174196 = score(doc=1211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.11448086 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
    0.022425208 = weight(_text_:index in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022425208 = score(doc=1211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.12069881 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=1211,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

In this article we present a method for retrieving documents from a digital library through a visual interface based on automatically generated concepts. We used a vocabulary generation algorithm to generate a set of concepts for the digital library and a technique called the max-min distance technique to cluster them. Additionally, the concepts were visualized in a spring embedding graph layout to depict the semantic relationship among them. The resulting graph layout serves as an aid to users for retrieving documents. An online archive containing the contents of D-Lib Magazine from July 1995 to May 2002 was used to test the utility of an implemented retrieval and visualization system. We believe that the method developed and tested can be applied to many different domains to help users get a better understanding of online document collections and to minimize users' cognitive load during execution of search tasks. Over the past few years, the volume of information available through the World Wide Web has been expanding exponentially. Never has so much information been so readily available and shared among so many people. Unfortunately, the unstructured nature and huge volume of information accessible over networks have made it hard for users to sift through and find relevant information. To deal with this problem, information retrieval (IR) techniques have gained more intensive attention from both industrial and academic researchers. Numerous IR techniques have been developed to help deal with the information overload problem. These techniques concentrate on mathematical models and algorithms for retrieval. Popular IR models such as the Boolean model, the vector-space model, the probabilistic model and their variants are well established.
From the user's perspective, however, it is still difficult to use current information retrieval systems. Users frequently have problems expressing their information needs and translating those needs into queries. This is partly due to the fact that information needs cannot be expressed appropriately in systems terms. It is not unusual for users to input search terms that are different from the index terms information systems use. Various methods have been proposed to help users choose search terms and articulate queries. One widely used approach is to incorporate into the information system a thesaurus-like component that represents both the important concepts in a particular subject area and the semantic relationships among those concepts. Unfortunately, the development and use of thesauri is not without its own problems. The thesaurus employed in a specific information system has often been developed for a general subject area and needs significant enhancement to be tailored to the information system where it is to be used. This thesaurus development process, if done manually, is both time consuming and labor intensive. Usage of a thesaurus in searching is complex and may raise barriers for the user. For illustration purposes, let us consider two scenarios of thesaurus usage. In the first scenario the user inputs a search term and the thesaurus then displays a matching set of related terms. Without an overview of the thesaurus - and without the ability to see the matching terms in the context of other terms - it may be difficult to assess the quality of the related terms in order to select the correct term. In the second scenario the user browses the whole thesaurus, which is organized as in an alphabetically ordered list. The problem with this approach is that the list may be long, and neither does it show users the global semantic relationship among all the listed terms.

0.037362345 = product of:
  0.062270574 = sum of:
    0.03588033 = weight(_text_:index in 3478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03588033 = score(doc=3478,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.1931181 = fieldWeight in 3478, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3478)
    0.018639674 = weight(_text_:system in 3478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018639674 = score(doc=3478,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 3478, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3478)
    0.0077505717 = product of:
      0.023251714 = sum of:
        0.023251714 = weight(_text_:29 in 3478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023251714 = score(doc=3478,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 3478, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3478)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

One of the problems faced by users of databases containing textual documents is the difficulty in retrieving relevant results due to the diverse vocabulary used in queries and contained in relevant documents, especially when there are only a small number of relevant documents. This problem is known as the Vocabulary Gap. The PIKES team have constructed a small test collection of 331 articles extracted from a blog and a Gold Standard for 35 queries selected from the blog's search log so the results of different approaches to semantic search can be compared. So far, prior approaches include recognising Named Entities in documents and queries, and relations including temporal relations, and represent them as `semantic layers' in a retrieval system index. In this work, we take two different approaches that do not involve Named Entity Recognition. In the first approach, we process an unannotated version of the PIKES document collection using Latent Semantic Analysis and use a combination of query coordination and automatic relevance feedback with which we outperform prior work. However, this approach is highly dependent on the underlying collection, and is not necessarily scalable to massive collections. In our second approach, we use an LSA Model generated by SEMILAR from a Wikipedia dump to generate a Term Similarity Matrix (TSM). We automatically expand the queries in the PIKES test collection with related terms from the TSM and submit them to a term-by-document matrix derived by indexing the PIKES collection using the Vector Space Model. Coupled with a combination of query coordination and automatic relevance feedback we also outperform prior work with this approach. The advantage of the second approach is that it is independent of the underlying document collection.

Date

10. 3.2017 13:29:57

0.036848735 = product of:
  0.09212184 = sum of:
    0.06523886 = weight(_text_:system in 2134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06523886 = score(doc=2134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.4871716 = fieldWeight in 2134, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2134)
    0.026882974 = product of:
      0.08064892 = sum of:
        0.08064892 = weight(_text_:22 in 2134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08064892 = score(doc=2134,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2134, 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=2134)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

30. 3.2001 13:32:22

0.034079522 = product of:
  0.085198805 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=431,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 431, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=431)
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=431,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 431, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=431)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The birth of the Web has brought an exponential growth to the amount of the information that is freely available to the Internet population, overloading users and entangling their efforts to satisfy their information needs. Web search engines such Google, Yahoo, or Bing have become popular mainly due to the fact that they offer an easy-to-use query interface (i.e., based on keywords) and an effective and efficient query execution mechanism. The majority of these search engines do not consider information stored on the deep or hidden Web [9,28], despite the fact that the size of the deep Web is estimated to be much bigger than the surface Web [9,47]. There have been a number of systems that record interactions with the deep Web sources or automatically submit queries them (mainly through their Web form interfaces) in order to index their context. Unfortunately, this technique is only partially indexing the data instance. Moreover, it is not possible to take advantage of the query capabilities of data sources, for example, of the relational query features, because their interface is often restricted from the Web form. Besides, Web search engines focus on retrieving documents and not on querying structured sources, so they are unable to access information based on concepts.

0.03196765 = product of:
  0.07991912 = sum of:
    0.064557426 = weight(_text_:context in 5693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064557426 = score(doc=5693,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.36633876 = fieldWeight in 5693, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5693)
    0.015361699 = product of:
      0.046085097 = sum of:
        0.046085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 5693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046085097 = score(doc=5693,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5693, 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=5693)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The process of term selection for query expansion by end-users is discussed within the context of a study of interactive query expansion in a relevance feedback environment. This user study focuses on how users' perceive and understand term relationships, such as hierarchical and associative relationships, in their searches

Date

30. 3.2001 13:35:22

0.031794615 = product of:
  0.079486534 = sum of:
    0.06988547 = weight(_text_:context in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06988547 = score(doc=1428,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.39657336 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1428, 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=1428)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Humans can make hasty, but generally robust judgements about what a text fragment is, or is not, about. Such judgements are termed information inference. This article furnishes an account of information inference from a psychologistic stance. By drawing an theories from nonclassical logic and applied cognition, an information inference mechanism is proposed that makes inferences via computations of information flow through an approximation of a conceptual space. Within a conceptual space information is represented geometrically. In this article, geometric representations of words are realized as vectors in a high dimensional semantic space, which is automatically constructed from a text corpus. Two approaches were presented for priming vector representations according to context. The first approach uses a concept combination heuristic to adjust the vector representation of a concept in the light of the representation of another concept. The second approach computes a prototypical concept an the basis of exemplar trace texts and moves it in the dimensional space according to the context. Information inference is evaluated by measuring the effectiveness of query models derived by information flow computations. Results show that information flow contributes significantly to query model effectiveness, particularly with respect to precision. Moreover, retrieval effectiveness compares favorably with two probabilistic query models, and another based an semantic association. More generally, this article can be seen as a contribution towards realizing operational systems that mimic text-based human reasoning.

Date

22. 3.2003 19:35:46

0.030551035 = product of:
  0.076377586 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 2384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=2384,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 2384, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2384)
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 2384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=2384,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 2384, 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=2384)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

LyberWorld is a prototype IR user interface. It implements visualizations of an abstract information space-fulltext. The paper derives a model for such visualizations and an exemplar user interface design is implemented for the probabilistic fulltext retrieval system INQUERY. Visualizations are used to communicate information search and browsing activities in a natural way by applying metaphors of spatial navigation in abstract information spaces. Visualization tools for exploring information spaces and judging relevance of information items are introduced and an example session demonstrates the prototype. The presence of a spatial model in the user's mind and interaction with a system's corresponding display methods is regarded as an essential contribution towards natural interaction and reduction of cognitive costs during e.g. query construction, orientation within the database content, relevance judgement and orientation within the retrieval context.

0.030198753 = product of:
  0.07549688 = sum of:
    0.05648775 = weight(_text_:context in 5295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05648775 = score(doc=5295,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32054642 = fieldWeight in 5295, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5295)
    0.019009134 = product of:
      0.0570274 = sum of:
        0.0570274 = weight(_text_:22 in 5295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0570274 = score(doc=5295,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 5295, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5295)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A new search paradigm, in which the primary user activity is the guided exploration of a complex information space rather than the retrieval of items based on precise specifications, is proposed. The author claims that this paradigm is the norm in most practical applications, and that solutions based on traditional search methods are not effective in this context. He then presents a solution based on dynamic taxonomies, a knowledge management model that effectively guides users to reach their goal while giving them total freedom in exploring the information base. Applications, benefits, and current research are discussed.

Date

22. 7.2006 17:56:22

0.027389398 = product of:
  0.13694699 = sum of:
    0.13694699 = weight(_text_:context in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13694699 = score(doc=4992,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.7771219 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The field of human information behavior runs the gamut of processes from the realization of a need or gap in understanding, to the search for information from one or more sources to fill that gap, to the use of that information to complete a task at hand or to satisfy a curiosity, as well as other behaviors such as avoiding information or finding information serendipitously. Designers of mechanisms, tools, and computer-based systems to facilitate this seeking and search process often lack a full knowledge of the context surrounding the search. This context may vary depending on the job or role of the person; individual characteristics such as personality, domain knowledge, age, gender, perception of self, etc.; the task at hand; the source and the channel and their degree of accessibility and usability; and the relationship that the seeker shares with the source. Yet researchers have yet to agree on what context really means. While there have been various research studies incorporating context, and biennial conferences on context in information behavior, there lacks a clear definition of what context is, what its boundaries are, and what elements and variables comprise context. In this book, we look at the many definitions of and the theoretical and empirical studies on context, and I attempt to map the conceptual space of context in information behavior. I propose theoretical frameworks to map the boundaries, elements, and variables of context. I then discuss how to incorporate these frameworks and variables in the design of research studies on context. We then arrive at a unified definition of context. This book should provide designers of search systems a better understanding of context as they seek to meet the needs and demands of information seekers. It will be an important resource for researchers in Library and Information Science, especially doctoral students looking for one resource that covers an exhaustive range of the most current literature related to context, the best selection of classics, and a synthesis of these into theoretical frameworks and a unified definition. The book should help to move forward research in the field by clarifying the elements, variables, and views that are pertinent. In particular, the list of elements to be considered, and the variables associated with each element will be extremely useful to researchers wanting to include the influences of context in their studies.

LCSH

Context / aware computing

Subject

Context / aware computing

0.027260004 = product of:
  0.068150006 = sum of:
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 5962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=5962,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 5962, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5962)
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 5962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=5962,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 5962, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5962)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Seit 3. Juli 2006 stellt das ZPID eine verbesserte Suchoberfläche für die Recherche in der bibliographischen Psychologie-Datenbank PSYNDEX zur Verfügung. Hauptmerkmal der neuen Version 1.1 des 'ZPID-Retrieval für PSYNDEX' ist die Einbindung von 'PSYNDEX Terms', dem kontrollierten Wortschatz der psychologischen Fachsprache. PSYNDEX Terms basiert auf dem 'Thesaurus of Psychological Index Terms' der American Psychological Association (APA) und enthält im Moment über 5.400 Deskriptoren. Zu jedem Deskriptor werden ggf. Oberbegriffe, Unterbegriffe und verwandte Begriffe angezeigt. Wer die Suchoberfläche nutzt, kann entweder im Thesaurus blättern oder gezielt nach Thesaurusbegriffen suchen. Kommt der eigene frei gewählte Suchbegriff nicht im Thesaurus vor, macht das System selbsttätig Vorschläge für passende Thesaurusbegriffe. DerThesaurus ist komplett zweisprachig (deutsch/englisch) implementiert, sodass er auch als Übersetzungshilfe dient. Weitere Verbesserungen der Suchoberfläche betreffen die Darstellbarkeit in unterschiedlichen Web-Browsern mit dem Ziel der Barrierefreiheit, die Erweiterung der OnlineHilfe mit Beispielen für erfolgreiche Suchstrategien, die Möglichkeit, zu speziellen Themen vertiefte Informationen abzurufen (den Anfang machen psychologische Behandlungsprogramme) und die Bereitstellung eines Export-Filters für EndNote. Zielgruppe des ZPID-Retrieval sind Einzelpersonen, die keinen institutionellen PSYNDEX-Zugang, z.B. am Campus einer Universität, nutzen können. Sie können das kostenpflichtige Retrieval direkt online erwerben und werden binnen weniger Minuten freigeschaltet. Kunden mit existierendem Vertrag kommen automatisch in den Genuss der verbesserten Suchoberfläche.

0.027260004 = product of:
  0.068150006 = sum of:
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 2854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=2854,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 2854, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2854)
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 2854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=2854,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 2854, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2854)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In this article, we propose a new approach for indexing biomedical documents based on a possibilistic network that carries out partial matching between documents and biomedical vocabulary. The main contribution of our approach is to deal with the imprecision and uncertainty of the indexing task using possibility theory. We enhance estimation of the similarity between a document and a given concept using the two measures of possibility and necessity. Possibility estimates the extent to which a document is not similar to the concept. The second measure can provide confirmation that the document is similar to the concept. Our contribution also reduces the limitation of partial matching. Although the latter allows extracting from the document other variants of terms than those in dictionaries, it also generates irrelevant information. Our objective is to filter the index using the knowledge provided by the Unified Medical Language System®. Experiments were carried out on different corpora, showing encouraging results (the improvement rate is +26.37% in terms of main average precision when compared with the baseline).