Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011369622 = product of:
  0.022739245 = sum of:
    0.022739245 = product of:
      0.04547849 = sum of:
        0.04547849 = weight(_text_:subject in 3311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04547849 = score(doc=3311,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 3311, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3311)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.008039537 = product of:
  0.016079074 = sum of:
    0.016079074 = product of:
      0.032158148 = sum of:
        0.032158148 = weight(_text_:subject in 3300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032158148 = score(doc=3300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 3300, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3300)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.