-
Golub, K.; Lykke, M.: Automated classification of web pages in hierarchical browsing (2009)
0.04
0.03801625 = product of:
0.05702437 = sum of:
0.022522911 = weight(_text_:im in 3614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022522911 = score(doc=3614,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.15615936 = fieldWeight in 3614, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3614)
0.03450146 = product of:
0.051752187 = sum of:
0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 3614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025961377 = score(doc=3614,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 3614, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3614)
0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025790809 = score(doc=3614,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3614, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3614)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Theme
- Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
-
Golub, K.; Soergel, D.; Buchanan, G.; Tudhope, D.; Lykke, M.; Hiom, D.: ¬A framework for evaluating automatic indexing or classification in the context of retrieval (2016)
0.00
0.0049634436 = product of:
0.014890331 = sum of:
0.014890331 = product of:
0.04467099 = sum of:
0.04467099 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04467099 = score(doc=3311,freq=6.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 3311, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3311)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Tools for automatic subject assignment help deal with scale and sustainability in creating and enriching metadata, establishing more connections across and between resources and enhancing consistency. Although some software vendors and experimental researchers claim the tools can replace manual subject indexing, hard scientific evidence of their performance in operating information environments is scarce. A major reason for this is that research is usually conducted in laboratory conditions, excluding the complexities of real-life systems and situations. The article reviews and discusses issues with existing evaluation approaches such as problems of aboutness and relevance assessments, implying the need to use more than a single "gold standard" method when evaluating indexing and retrieval, and proposes a comprehensive evaluation framework. The framework is informed by a systematic review of the literature on evaluation approaches: evaluating indexing quality directly through assessment by an evaluator or through comparison with a gold standard, evaluating the quality of computer-assisted indexing directly in the context of an indexing workflow, and evaluating indexing quality indirectly through analyzing retrieval performance.
-
Golub, K.; Hansson, J.; Soergel, D.; Tudhope, D.: Managing classification in libraries : a methodological outline for evaluating automatic subject indexing and classification in Swedish library catalogues (2015)
0.00
0.004052635 = product of:
0.012157904 = sum of:
0.012157904 = product of:
0.03647371 = sum of:
0.03647371 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03647371 = score(doc=2300,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 2300, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2300)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Subject terms play a crucial role in resource discovery but require substantial effort to produce. Automatic subject classification and indexing address problems of scale and sustainability and can be used to enrich existing bibliographic records, establish more connections across and between resources and enhance consistency of bibliographic data. The paper aims to put forward a complex methodological framework to evaluate automatic classification tools of Swedish textual documents based on the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) recently introduced to Swedish libraries. Three major complementary approaches are suggested: a quality-built gold standard, retrieval effects, domain analysis. The gold standard is built based on input from at least two catalogue librarians, end-users expert in the subject, end users inexperienced in the subject and automated tools. Retrieval effects are studied through a combination of assigned and free tasks, including factual and comprehensive types. The study also takes into consideration the different role and character of subject terms in various knowledge domains, such as scientific disciplines. As a theoretical framework, domain analysis is used and applied in relation to the implementation of DDC in Swedish libraries and chosen domains of knowledge within the DDC itself.
-
Golub, K.: Automated subject classification of textual web documents (2006)
0.00
0.0028656456 = product of:
0.008596936 = sum of:
0.008596936 = product of:
0.025790809 = sum of:
0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025790809 = score(doc=5600,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5600, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5600)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose - To provide an integrated perspective to similarities and differences between approaches to automated classification in different research communities (machine learning, information retrieval and library science), and point to problems with the approaches and automated classification as such. Design/methodology/approach - A range of works dealing with automated classification of full-text web documents are discussed. Explorations of individual approaches are given in the following sections: special features (description, differences, evaluation), application and characteristics of web pages. Findings - Provides major similarities and differences between the three approaches: document pre-processing and utilization of web-specific document characteristics is common to all the approaches; major differences are in applied algorithms, employment or not of the vector space model and of controlled vocabularies. Problems of automated classification are recognized. Research limitations/implications - The paper does not attempt to provide an exhaustive bibliography of related resources. Practical implications - As an integrated overview of approaches from different research communities with application examples, it is very useful for students in library and information science and computer science, as well as for practitioners. Researchers from one community have the information on how similar tasks are conducted in different communities. Originality/value - To the author's knowledge, no review paper on automated text classification attempted to discuss more than one community's approach from an integrated perspective.
