Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0029000505 = product of:
  0.005800101 = sum of:
    0.005800101 = product of:
      0.011600202 = sum of:
        0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 3386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011600202 = score(doc=3386,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 3386, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3386)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reports a controlled study with statistical significance tests an five text categorization methods: the Support Vector Machines (SVM), a k-Nearest Neighbor (kNN) classifier, a neural network (NNet) approach, the Linear Leastsquares Fit (LLSF) mapping and a Naive Bayes (NB) classifier. We focus an the robustness of these methods in dealing with a skewed category distribution, and their performance as function of the training-set category frequency. Our results show that SVM, kNN and LLSF significantly outperform NNet and NB when the number of positive training instances per category are small (less than ten, and that all the methods perform comparably when the categories are sufficiently common (over 300 instances).

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=5588,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The standardization of Chinese materials classification was first proposed in the late-1970s in China. In December 1980, the CCDST, the Chinese Library Association and the Chinese Society for Information Science proposed that the Chinese Library Classification system be adopted as national standard. This marked the beginning of the standardization of Chinese materials classification. Later on, there were many conferences and workshops held and four draft national standards were discussed, those for the Chinese Library Classification systems, the Materials Classification System, the Rules for Thesaurus and Subject Headings, and the rules for Materials Classifying Color Recognition. This article gives a brief review on the historical development of the standardization on Chinese Library Classification. It also discusses its effects on automation, networking and resources sharing and the feasibility of adopting Chinese Library Classification as a National Standard. In addition, the main content of the standardization of materials classification, use of the national standard classification system and variations under the standard system are covered in this article

Type

a