Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

8.147042E-4 = product of:
  0.0048882253 = sum of:
    0.0048882253 = weight(_text_:a in 4770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0048882253 = score(doc=4770,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.034319755 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029764405 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4770, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4770)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Sentence clustering plays a pivotal role in theme-based summarization, which discovers topic themes defined as the clusters of highly related sentences to avoid redundancy and cover more diverse information. As the length of sentences is short and the content it contains is limited, the bag-of-words cosine similarity traditionally used for document clustering is no longer suitable. Special treatment for measuring sentence similarity is necessary. In this article, we study the sentence-level clustering problem. After exploiting concept- and context-enriched sentence vector representations, we develop two co-clustering frameworks to enhance sentence-level clustering for theme-based summarization-integrated clustering and interactive clustering-both allowing word and document to play an explicit role in sentence clustering as independent text objects rather than using word or concept as features of a sentence in a document set. In each framework, we experiment with two-level co-clustering (i.e., sentence-word co-clustering or sentence-document co-clustering) and three-level co-clustering (i.e., document-sentence-word co-clustering). Compared against concept- and context-oriented sentence-representation reformation, co-clustering shows a clear advantage in both intrinsic clustering quality evaluation and extrinsic summarization evaluation conducted on the Document Understanding Conferences (DUC) datasets.

Type

a

8.147042E-4 = product of:
  0.0048882253 = sum of:
    0.0048882253 = weight(_text_:a in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0048882253 = score(doc=3627,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.034319755 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029764405 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

A very important extension of the traditional domain of knowledge organization (KO) arises from attempts to incorporate techniques devised in the computer science domain for automatic concept extraction and for grouping, categorizing, clustering and otherwise organizing knowledge using mechanical means. Four specific terms have emerged to identify the most prevalent techniques: machine learning, clustering, automatic indexing, and automatic classification. Our study presents three domain analytical case analyses in search of answers. The first case relies on citations located using the ISKO-supported "Knowledge Organization Bibliography." The second case relies on works in both Web of Science and SCOPUS. Case three applies co-word analysis and citation analysis to the contents of the papers in the present special issue. We observe scholars involved in "clustering" and "automatic classification" who share common thematic emphases. But we have found no coherence, no common activity and no social semantics. We have not found a research front, or a common teleology within the KO domain. We also have found a lively group of authors who have succeeded in submitting papers to this special issue, and their work quite interestingly aligns with the case studies we report. There is an emphasis on KO for information retrieval; there is much work on clustering (which involves conceptual points within texts) and automatic classification (which involves semantic groupings at the meta-document level).

Type

a

7.2869356E-4 = product of:
  0.0043721613 = sum of:
    0.0043721613 = weight(_text_:a in 497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0043721613 = score(doc=497,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.034319755 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029764405 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 497, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=497)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Establishing open innovation communities has evolved as an important product innovation and development strategy for companies. Yet, the success of such communities relies on the successful implementation of many user-submitted ideas. Although extant literature has examined the impact of user experience and idea characteristics on idea implementation, little is known from the information input perspective, for example, feedback. Based on the information overload theory and knowledge content framework, we propose that the amount and types of feedback content have different effects on the likelihood of subsequent idea implementation, and such effects depend on the level of users' success experience. We tested the research model using a panel logistic model with the data of MIUI Forum. The study results revealed that the amount of feedback has an inverted U-shaped effect on idea implementation, and such effect is moderated by a user's past success. Moreover, the type of feedback content (cost and benefit-related feedback and functionality-related feedback) positively affects idea implementation, and a user's past success positively moderated the above effects. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications, limitations of our research, and suggestions for future research.

Type

a

4.3721613E-4 = product of:
  0.0026232968 = sum of:
    0.0026232968 = weight(_text_:a in 3414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0026232968 = score(doc=3414,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.034319755 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029764405 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3414, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3414)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Type

a