Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019813985 = product of:
  0.059441954 = sum of:
    0.03853567 = weight(_text_:wide in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03853567 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.020906283 = weight(_text_:web in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020906283 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Die zunehmende Verfügbarmachung digitaler Informationen in den letzten Jahren sowie die Aussicht auf ein weiteres Ansteigen der sogenannten Datenflut kumulieren in einem grundlegenden, sich weiter verstärkenden Informationsstrukturierungsproblem. Die stetige Zunahme von digitalen Informationsressourcen im World Wide Web sichert zwar jederzeit und ortsungebunden den Zugriff auf verschiedene Informationen; offen bleibt der strukturierte Zugang, insbesondere zu wissenschaftlichen Ressourcen. Angesichts der steigenden Anzahl elektronischer Inhalte und vor dem Hintergrund stagnierender bzw. knapper werdender personeller Ressourcen in der Sacherschließun schafft keine Bibliothek bzw. kein Bibliotheksverbund es mehr, weder aktuell noch zukünftig, alle digitalen Daten zu erfassen, zu strukturieren und zueinander in Beziehung zu setzen. In der Informationsgesellschaft des 21. Jahrhunderts wird es aber zunehmend wichtiger, die in der Flut verschwundenen wissenschaftlichen Informationen zeitnah, angemessen und vollständig zu strukturieren und somit als Basis für eine Wissensgenerierung wieder nutzbar zu machen. Eine normierte Inhaltserschließung digitaler Informationsressourcen ist deshalb für die Deutsche Zentralbibliothek für Wirtschaftswissenschaften (ZBW) als wichtige Informationsinfrastruktureinrichtung in diesem Bereich ein entscheidender und auch erfolgskritischer Aspekt im Wettbewerb mit anderen Informationsdienstleistern. Weil die traditionelle intellektuelle Sacherschließung aber nicht beliebig skalierbar ist - mit dem Anstieg der Zahl an Online-Dokumenten steigt proportional auch der personelle Ressourcenbedarf an Fachreferenten, wenn ein gewisser Qualitätsstandard gehalten werden soll - bedarf es zukünftig anderer Sacherschließungsverfahren. Automatisierte Verschlagwortungsmethoden werden dabei als einzige Möglichkeit angesehen, die bibliothekarische Sacherschließung auch im digitalen Zeitalter zukunftsfest auszugestalten. Zudem können maschinelle Ansätze dazu beitragen, die Heterogenitäten (Indexierungsinkonsistenzen) zwischen den einzelnen Sacherschließer zu nivellieren, und somit zu einer homogeneren Erschließung des Bibliotheksbestandes beitragen.

0.019634247 = product of:
  0.05890274 = sum of:
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=3627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=3627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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).

0.005461648 = product of:
  0.03276989 = sum of:
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 3311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=3311,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 3311, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3311)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.