-
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)
0.10
0.09524199 = product of:
0.14286299 = sum of:
0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08966068 = score(doc=3311,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 3311, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3311)
0.053202312 = product of:
0.106404625 = sum of:
0.106404625 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.106404625 = score(doc=3311,freq=14.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.55947536 = fieldWeight in 3311, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3311)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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.
-
Humphrey, S.M.; Névéol, A.; Browne, A.; Gobeil, J.; Ruch, P.; Darmoni, S.J.: Comparing a rule-based versus statistical system for automatic categorization of MEDLINE documents according to biomedical specialty (2009)
0.01
0.0134057235 = product of:
0.04021717 = sum of:
0.04021717 = product of:
0.08043434 = sum of:
0.08043434 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08043434 = score(doc=3300,freq=8.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.42292362 = fieldWeight in 3300, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3300)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Automatic document categorization is an important research problem in Information Science and Natural Language Processing. Many applications, including, Word Sense Disambiguation and Information Retrieval in large collections, can benefit from such categorization. This paper focuses on automatic categorization of documents from the biomedical literature into broad discipline-based categories. Two different systems are described and contrasted: CISMeF, which uses rules based on human indexing of the documents by the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) controlled vocabulary in order to assign metaterms (MTs), and Journal Descriptor Indexing (JDI), based on human categorization of about 4,000 journals and statistical associations between journal descriptors (JDs) and textwords in the documents. We evaluate and compare the performance of these systems against a gold standard of humanly assigned categories for 100 MEDLINE documents, using six measures selected from trec_eval. The results show that for five of the measures performance is comparable, and for one measure JDI is superior. We conclude that these results favor JDI, given the significantly greater intellectual overhead involved in human indexing and maintaining a rule base for mapping MeSH terms to MTs. We also note a JDI method that associates JDs with MeSH indexing rather than textwords, and it may be worthwhile to investigate whether this JDI method (statistical) and CISMeF (rule-based) might be combined and then evaluated showing they are complementary to one another.
-
Koch, T.: Experiments with automatic classification of WAIS databases and indexing of WWW : some results from the Nordic WAIS/WWW project (1994)
0.01
0.013270989 = product of:
0.039812967 = sum of:
0.039812967 = product of:
0.079625934 = sum of:
0.079625934 = weight(_text_:indexing in 7209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.079625934 = score(doc=7209,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.41867304 = fieldWeight in 7209, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7209)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The Nordic WAIS/WWW project sponsored by NORDINFO is a joint project between Lund University Library and the National Technological Library of Denmark. It aims to improve the existing networked information discovery and retrieval tools Wide Area Information System (WAIS) and World Wide Web (WWW), and to move towards unifying WWW and WAIS. Details current results focusing on the WAIS side of the project. Describes research into automatic indexing and classification of WAIS sources, development of an orientation tool for WAIS, and development of a WAIS index of WWW resources
-
Smiraglia, R.P.; Cai, X.: Tracking the evolution of clustering, machine learning, automatic indexing and automatic classification in knowledge organization (2017)
0.01
0.009479279 = product of:
0.028437834 = sum of:
0.028437834 = product of:
0.05687567 = sum of:
0.05687567 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05687567 = score(doc=3627,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.29905218 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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).
