1981
DOI: 10.1016/s0306-4573(81)80004-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Threshold values and Boolean retrieval systems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0
3

Year Published

1985
1985
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 82 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
18
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…This link is more evident with the cardinalitybased model corresponding to formula (9). Indeed, the aggregation function is also the sum, and the matching function is a t-norm, which may be the product.…”
Section: Fuzzy Generalizationmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…This link is more evident with the cardinalitybased model corresponding to formula (9). Indeed, the aggregation function is also the sum, and the matching function is a t-norm, which may be the product.…”
Section: Fuzzy Generalizationmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…In 82 Donald H. Kraft, Gloria Bordogna and Gabriella Pasi redefine the previous fuzzy linguistic IRS 81 by introducing a new threshold semantics in a linguistic context which was obtained by combination of both, the ideal semantics 58 and threshold semantics 60 .…”
Section: Fuzzy Linguistic Irss Based On Classical Flmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The four kind of semantics with different interpretations or matching functions have been considered in our computer-supported learning system for FIRSs, i.e., classical threshold semantics (Buell and Kraft 1981;Waller and Kraft 1979), symmetrical threshold semantics (Herrera-Viedma 2001b), improved threshold semantics (Herrera-Viedma et al 2005), relative importance semantics (Herrera-Viedma et al 2005;Yager 1987), improved relative importance semantics (Herrera-Viedma 2001a;Herrera-Viedma et al 2003), classical perfection semantics (Bordogna and Pasi 1993), non-symmetrical perfection semantics (Kraft et al 1994), quantitative semantics (Herrera-Viedma 2001b).…”
Section: Query Evaluation Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, for threshold semantics we can use three different threshold proposals: classical threshold semantics (Buell and Kraft 1981;Waller and Kraft 1979), symmetrical threshold semantics (Herrera-Viedma 2001b) and improved threshold semantics (Herrera-Viedma et al 2005). To understand their different meanings we have observed that the students need to process many examples and compare the results continuously, and it is very difficult to get it in blackboard classes.…”
Section: Teaching Problems For Firssmentioning
confidence: 99%