Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Allen, R.B."
  1. Allen, R.B.: ¬Two digital library interfaces that exploit hierarchical structure (1995) 0.02
    0.022021351 = product of:
      0.06606405 = sum of:
        0.06606405 = weight(_text_:wide in 2416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06606405 = score(doc=2416,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 2416, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2416)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Two library classification system interfaces have been implemented for navigating and searching large collections of document and book records. One interface allows the user to browse book records organized by the DDC hierarchy. A Book Shelf display reflects the facet position in the classification hierarchy during browsing, and it dynamically updates to reflect search hits and attribute selections. The other interface provides access to records describing computer science documents classified by the ACM Computing Reviews (CR) system. The CR classification system is a type of faceted classification in which documents can appear at several points in the hierarchy. These two interfaces demonstrate that classification structure can be effectively utilized for organizing digital libraries and, potentiall, collections of Internet-wide information services
  2. Zhu, W.Z.; Allen, R.B.: Document clustering using the LSI subspace signature model (2013) 0.01
    0.006877774 = product of:
      0.020633321 = sum of:
        0.020633321 = product of:
          0.041266643 = sum of:
            0.041266643 = weight(_text_:22 in 690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.041266643 = score(doc=690,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050763648 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 690, 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=690)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    23. 3.2013 13:22:36
  3. Allen, R.B.; Wu, Y.: Metrics for the scope of a collection (2005) 0.01
    0.005973486 = product of:
      0.017920459 = sum of:
        0.017920459 = product of:
          0.035840917 = sum of:
            0.035840917 = weight(_text_:web in 4570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035840917 = score(doc=4570,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050763648 = queryNorm
                0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4570, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4570)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Some collections cover many topics, while others are narrowly focused an a limited number of topics. We introduce the concept of the "scope" of a collection of documents and we compare two ways of measuring lt. These measures are based an the distances between documents. The first uses the overlap of words between pairs of documents. The second measure uses a novel method that calculates the semantic relatedness to pairs of words from the documents. Those values are combined to obtain an overall distance between the documents. The main validation for the measures compared Web pages categorized by Yahoo. Sets of pages sampied from broad categories were determined to have a higher scope than sets derived from subcategories. The measure was significant and confirmed the expected difference in scope. Finally, we discuss other measures related to scope.