Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Park, S."
  1. Belkin, N.J.; Cabezas, A.; Cool, C.; Kim, K.; Ng, K.B.; Park, S.; Pressman, R.; Rieh, S.; Savage, P.; Xie, H.: Rutgers interactive track at TREC-5 (1997) 0.00 
    0.003128536 = product of:
  0.009385608 = sum of:
    0.009385608 = weight(_text_:a in 3112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009385608 = score(doc=3112,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3112, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3112)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Type
    a
  2. Lee, J.-H.; Park, S.; Ahn, C.-M.; Kim, D.: Automatic generic document summarization based on non-negative matrix factorization (2009) 0.00 
    0.002682161 = product of:
  0.008046483 = sum of:
    0.008046483 = weight(_text_:a in 2448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008046483 = score(doc=2448,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 2448, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2448)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    In existing unsupervised methods, Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) is used for sentence selection. However, the obtained results are less meaningful, because singular vectors are used as the bases for sentence selection from given documents, and singular vector components can have negative values. We propose a new unsupervised method using Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF) to select sentences for automatic generic document summarization. The proposed method uses non-negative constraints, which are more similar to the human cognition process. As a result, the method selects more meaningful sentences for generic document summarization than those selected using LSA.
    Type
    a
  3. Belkin, N.J.; Cool, C.; Koenemann, J.; Ng, K.B.; Park, S.: Using relevance feedback and ranking in interactive searching (1996) 0.00 
    0.002654651 = product of:
  0.007963953 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 7588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=7588,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 7588, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7588)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Type
    a
  4. Durfee, E.H.; Mullen, T.; Park, S.; Vidal, J.M.; Weinstein, P.: Strategic reasoning and adaptation in an information economy (1999) 0.00 
    0.002654651 = product of:
  0.007963953 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 3979) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=3979,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3979, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3979)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Type
    a
  5. Burnett, K.; Ng, K.B.; Park, S.: ¬A comparison of the two traditions of metadata development (1999) 0.00 
    0.002654651 = product of:
  0.007963953 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 4056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=4056,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4056, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4056)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Metadata has taken on a more significant role than ever before in the emerging digital library context because the effective organization of networked information clearly depends on the effective management and organization of metadata. The issue of metadata has been approached variously by different intellectual communities. The 2 main approaches may be characterized as: (1) the bibliographic control approach (origins and major proponents in library science); and (2) data management approach (origins and major proponents in computer science). This article examines the different conceptual foundations and orientations of the 2 major approaches contributing to the metadata discussion. An examination of the on-going efforts to establish metadata standards, and comparison of different metadata formats, supports a proposal for an integrated concept of metadata to facilitate the merging of the 2 approaches
    Type
    a
  6. Park, S.: Usability, user preferences, effectiveness, and user behaviors when searching individual and integrated full-text databases : implications for digital libraries (2000) 0.00 
    0.002212209 = product of:
  0.0066366266 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 4591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=4591,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4591, 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=4591)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This article addresses a crucial issue in the digital library environment: how to support effective interaction of users with heterogeneous and distributed information resources. In particular, this study compared usability, user preference, effectiveness, and searching behaviors in systems that implement interaction with multiple databases as if they were one (integrated interaction) in a experiment in the TREC environment. 28 volunteers were recruited from the graduate students of the School of Communication, Information & Library Studies at Rutgers University. Significantly more subjects preferred the common interface to the integrated interface, mainly because they could have more control over database selection. Subjects were also more satisfied with the results from the common interface, and performed better with the common interface than with the integrated interface. Overall, it appears that for this population, interacting with databases through a common interface is preferable on all grounds to interacting with databases through an integrated interface. These results suggest that: (1) the general assumption of the information retrieval (IR) literature that an integrated interaction is best needs to be revisited; (2) it is important to allow for more user control in the distributed environment; (3) for digital library purposes, it is important to characterize different databases to support user choice for integration; and (4) certain users prefer control over database selection while still opting for results to be merged
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Themes