FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2017182452> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2017182452 endingPage "337" @default.
• W2017182452 startingPage "313" @default.
• W2017182452 abstract "Disambiguating human inquiries, either in a semantic or lexical approach, is an essential process to consider in developing information systems and services. This paper discusses this process for design in two related domains--information systems and services--but in a specific aspect of such domains--accommodating different types of full-sentence questions. The information system domain attempts to refine question categorization to develop question-answering (QA) systems. While significant work has been done in this area, consideration of question ambiguity has been limited on classifying questions. This paper presents a classification of a set of full-sentence questions originally collected for the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) 8 and 9 Question Answering (QA) Tracks, according to their ambiguity which could mislead an engaged information system. (2) The information service domain concerns situations in which prospective users are engaged in the searching activity with the information needs represented in the question set. The discussion then extends into the possible intervention of a human information intermediary (i.e., a reference librarian) in the searching process. On the basis of the types and dimensions of ambiguity identified, three aspects of information systems and services are discussed mainly related to user-system and user-information intermediary interactions. Those three aspects are (1) increasing user input to make initial queries less ambiguous, (2) reducing search space by disambiguating queries, and (3) clustering search results on the basis of characteristics of prospective answers. Unlike the majority of question analyses conducted on the previous work (reviewed in this paper), this study does not aim to categorize questions according to plausible inference, anticipating a single answer to a question. Instead, users' query statements are classified on the basis of what the author did not explicitly know about the inquirers' intentions. This approach seems reasonable because what is manifestly known of an inquirer's intention from a single sentience query is quite limited. In addition, the increase in fact-finding questions in the digital environment provides significance for this specific study while the relevant literature indicates an increase in the virtual reference questions compared to the decrease in traditional reference questions. (3) This paper, therefore, addresses the following research questions: * What are the different types of ambiguity in a set of questions, originally collected for TREC 8 and 9 QA Tracks? * What are the implications of the ambiguities identified for user-system and user-information intermediary (i.e., a reference librarian) interactions? BACKGROUND Researchers have attempted to categorize questions (or user needs) with varying approaches from related fields. The review of relevant literature indicates little consideration of sentence ambiguity, particularly in categorizing an exhaustive set of questions. Internal Need vs. Expressed Need Many studies discussed possible discrepancies between people's internal needs and expressed needs. Taylor suggested the need to accommodate the users' hidden needs; he presented four different types of user needs as levels of question formation: visceral, conscious, formalized, and compromised. (4) Several authors further developed Taylor's ideas, emphasizing the need to cope with the discrepancies between the internal (visceral, conscious, formalized) and the expressed (compromised) needs. Ingwersen emphasized the importance of identifying the relation between the formalized need and the compromised need. The compromised need (the question as presented to librarian or system) is an expressed need. When there are discrepancies between the internal and the expressed needs, there seem to be stronger possibilities of ambiguity in users' questions. …" @default.
• W2017182452 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2017182452 creator A5021264487 @default.
• W2017182452 date "2014-06-01" @default.
• W2017182452 modified "2023-10-02" @default.
• W2017182452 title "Typology of Ambiguity on Representation of Information Needs" @default.
• W2017182452 cites W1975730663 @default.
• W2017182452 cites W2091951525 @default.
• W2017182452 cites W4233970145 @default.
• W2017182452 cites W4239670879 @default.
• W2017182452 doi "https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.53n4.313" @default.
• W2017182452 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2017182452 type Work @default.
• W2017182452 sameAs 2017182452 @default.
• W2017182452 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2017182452 countsByYear W20171824522020 @default.
• W2017182452 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2017182452 hasAuthorship W2017182452A5021264487 @default.
• W2017182452 hasBestOaLocation W20171824521 @default.
• W2017182452 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2017182452 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2017182452 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2017182452 hasConcept C19165224 @default.
• W2017182452 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2017182452 hasConcept C2776359362 @default.
• W2017182452 hasConcept C2780522230 @default.
• W2017182452 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2017182452 hasConcept C75795011 @default.
• W2017182452 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2017182452 hasConceptScore W2017182452C138885662 @default.
• W2017182452 hasConceptScore W2017182452C144024400 @default.
• W2017182452 hasConceptScore W2017182452C17744445 @default.
• W2017182452 hasConceptScore W2017182452C19165224 @default.
• W2017182452 hasConceptScore W2017182452C199539241 @default.
• W2017182452 hasConceptScore W2017182452C2776359362 @default.
• W2017182452 hasConceptScore W2017182452C2780522230 @default.
• W2017182452 hasConceptScore W2017182452C41895202 @default.
• W2017182452 hasConceptScore W2017182452C75795011 @default.
• W2017182452 hasConceptScore W2017182452C94625758 @default.
• W2017182452 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2017182452 hasLocation W20171824521 @default.
• W2017182452 hasOpenAccess W2017182452 @default.
• W2017182452 hasPrimaryLocation W20171824521 @default.
• W2017182452 hasRelatedWork W2048865700 @default.
• W2017182452 hasRelatedWork W2053856724 @default.
• W2017182452 hasRelatedWork W2058264330 @default.
• W2017182452 hasRelatedWork W2072338001 @default.
• W2017182452 hasRelatedWork W2335174989 @default.
• W2017182452 hasRelatedWork W2770181754 @default.
• W2017182452 hasRelatedWork W2981339284 @default.
• W2017182452 hasRelatedWork W3019004517 @default.
• W2017182452 hasRelatedWork W4379164846 @default.
• W2017182452 hasRelatedWork W2249841500 @default.
• W2017182452 hasVolume "53" @default.
• W2017182452 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2017182452 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2017182452 magId "2017182452" @default.
• W2017182452 workType "article" @default.