Search (30 results, page 1 of 2)

0.056636915 = product of:
  0.15103178 = sum of:
    0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025048172 = score(doc=8524,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 8524, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8524)
    0.021168415 = weight(_text_:of in 8524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021168415 = score(doc=8524,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 8524, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8524)
    0.10481519 = sum of:
      0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 8524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018727465 = score(doc=8524,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 8524, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8524)
      0.086087726 = weight(_text_:line in 8524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.086087726 = score(doc=8524,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.37175092 = fieldWeight in 8524, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8524)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Examines how techniques in the field of natural language processing can be applied to the analysis of text in information retrieval. State of the art text searching programs cannot distinguish, for example, between occurrences of the sickness, AIDS and aids as tool or between library school and school nor equate such terms as online or on-line which are variants of the same form. To make these distinction, systems must incorporate knowledge about the meaning of words in context. Research in natural language processing has concentrated on the automatic 'understanding' of language; how to analyze the grammatical structure and meaning of text. Although many asoects of this research remain experimental, describes how these techniques to recognize spelling variants, names, acronyms, and abbreviations

Source

Proceedings of the 15th National Online Meeting 1994, New York, 10-12 May 1994. Ed. by M.E. Williams

0.048159793 = product of:
  0.096319586 = sum of:
    0.03267216 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03267216 = score(doc=3645,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.26155996 = fieldWeight in 3645, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3645)
    0.014972764 = weight(_text_:use in 3645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014972764 = score(doc=3645,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.11841066 = fieldWeight in 3645, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3645)
    0.017463053 = weight(_text_:of in 3645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017463053 = score(doc=3645,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 3645, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3645)
    0.031211607 = product of:
      0.062423214 = sum of:
        0.062423214 = weight(_text_:computers in 3645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062423214 = score(doc=3645,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21710795 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.28752154 = fieldWeight in 3645, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3645)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

The selection that follows was chosen as it represents "a very early paper an the possibilities allowed by computers an documentation." In the early 1960s computers were being used to provide simple automatic indexing systems wherein keywords were extracted from documents. The problem with such systems was that they lacked vocabulary control, thus documents related in subject matter were not always collocated in retrieval. To improve retrieval by improving recall is the raison d'être of vocabulary control tools such as classifications and thesauri. The question arose whether it was possible by automatic means to construct classes of terms, which when substituted, one for another, could be used to improve retrieval performance? One of the first theoretical approaches to this question was initiated by R. M. Needham and Karen Sparck Jones at the Cambridge Language Research Institute in England.t The question was later pursued using experimental methodologies by Sparck Jones, who, as a Senior Research Associate in the Computer Laboratory at the University of Cambridge, has devoted her life's work to research in information retrieval and automatic naturai language processing. Based an the principles of numerical taxonomy, automatic classification techniques start from the premise that two objects are similar to the degree that they share attributes in common. When these two objects are keywords, their similarity is measured in terms of the number of documents they index in common. Step 1 in automatic classification is to compute mathematically the degree to which two terms are similar. Step 2 is to group together those terms that are "most similar" to each other, forming equivalence classes of intersubstitutable terms. The technique for forming such classes varies and is the factor that characteristically distinguishes different approaches to automatic classification. The technique used by Needham and Sparck Jones, that of clumping, is described in the selection that follows. Questions that must be asked are whether the use of automatically generated classes really does improve retrieval performance and whether there is a true eco nomic advantage in substituting mechanical for manual labor. Several years after her work with clumping, Sparck Jones was to observe that while it was not wholly satisfactory in itself, it was valuable in that it stimulated research into automatic classification. To this it might be added that it was valuable in that it introduced to libraryl information science the methods of numerical taxonomy, thus stimulating us to think again about the fundamental nature and purpose of classification. In this connection it might be useful to review how automatically derived classes differ from those of manually constructed classifications: 1) the manner of their derivation is purely a posteriori, the ultimate operationalization of the principle of literary warrant; 2) the relationship between members forming such classes is essentially statistical; the members of a given class are similar to each other not because they possess the class-defining characteristic but by virtue of sharing a family resemblance; and finally, 3) automatically derived classes are not related meaningfully one to another, that is, they are not ordered in traditional hierarchical and precedence relationships.

Footnote

Original in: Journal of documentation 20(1964) no.1, S.5-15.

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al

0.043777823 = product of:
  0.08755565 = sum of:
    0.029222867 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029222867 = score(doc=2314,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 2314, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2314)
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 2314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=2314,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 2314, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2314)
    0.020662563 = weight(_text_:of in 2314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020662563 = score(doc=2314,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 2314, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2314)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 2314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=2314,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 2314, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2314)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

Corpus linguistics is the study of large, computer held bodies of text. Some corpus linguists are concerned with language descriptions for its own sake. On the corpus-linguistic continuum, the study of raw ASCII text is situated at one end, and the study of heavily pre-coded text at the other. Discusses the use of word frequency to identify changes in the lexicon; word repetition and word positioning in automatic abstracting and word clusters in automatic text retrieval. Compares the machine extract with manual abstracts. Abstractors and indexers may find themselves taking the original wording of the text more into account as the focus moves towards the electronic medium and away from the hard copy

0.04236569 = product of:
  0.11297517 = sum of:
    0.059039105 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059039105 = score(doc=3313,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.47264296 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
    0.04277933 = weight(_text_:use in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04277933 = score(doc=3313,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.3383162 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
    0.011156735 = weight(_text_:of in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011156735 = score(doc=3313,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Reviews the basic issues and procedures involved in natural language processing of textual material for final use in information retrieval. Covers: natural language processing; natural language understanding; syntactic and semantic analysis; parsing; knowledge bases and knowledge representation

0.038383592 = product of:
  0.076767184 = sum of:
    0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020873476 = score(doc=1842,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1842, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1842)
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 1842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=1842,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 1842, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1842)
    0.024947217 = weight(_text_:of in 1842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024947217 = score(doc=1842,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.38633084 = fieldWeight in 1842, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1842)
    0.00955682 = product of:
      0.01911364 = sum of:
        0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 1842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01911364 = score(doc=1842,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 1842, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1842)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

Many terminology engineering processes involve the task of automatic terminology extraction: before the terminology of a given domain can be modelled, organised or standardised, important concepts (or terms) of this domain have to be identified and fed into terminological databases. These serve in further steps as a starting point for compiling dictionaries, thesauri or maybe even terminological ontologies for the domain. For the extraction of the initial concepts, extraction methods are needed that operate on specialised language texts. On the other hand, many machine learning or information retrieval applications require automatic indexing techniques. In Machine Learning applications concerned with the automatic clustering or classification of texts, often feature vectors are needed that describe the contents of a given text briefly but meaningfully. These feature vectors typically consist of a fairly small set of index terms together with weights indicating their importance. Short but meaningful descriptions of document contents as provided by good index terms are also useful to humans: some knowledge management applications (e.g. topic maps) use them as a set of basic concepts (topics). The author believes that the tasks of terminology extraction and automatic indexing have much in common and can thus benefit from the same set of basic algorithms. It is the goal of this paper to outline some methods that may be used in both contexts, but also to find the discriminating factors between the two tasks that call for the variation of parameters or application of different techniques. The discussion of these methods will be based on statistical, syntactical and especially morphological properties of (index) terms. The paper is concluded by the presentation of some qualitative and quantitative results comparing statistical and morphological methods.

Source

TKE 2005: Proc. of Terminology and Knowledge Engineering (TKE) 2005

0.029560743 = product of:
  0.07882865 = sum of:
    0.04338471 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04338471 = score(doc=5599,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 5599, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5599)
    0.022201622 = weight(_text_:of in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022201622 = score(doc=5599,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 5599, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5599)
    0.013242318 = product of:
      0.026484637 = sum of:
        0.026484637 = weight(_text_:on in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026484637 = score(doc=5599,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 5599, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5599)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Purpose - To evaluate the accuracy of conflation methods based on finite-state transducers (FSTs). Design/methodology/approach - Incorrectly lemmatized and stemmed forms may lead to the retrieval of inappropriate documents. Experimental studies to date have focused on retrieval performance, but very few on conflation performance. The process of normalization we used involved a linguistic toolbox that allowed us to construct, through graphic interfaces, electronic dictionaries represented internally by FSTs. The lexical resources developed were applied to a Spanish test corpus for merging term variants in canonical lemmatized forms. Conflation performance was evaluated in terms of an adaptation of recall and precision measures, based on accuracy and coverage, not actual retrieval. The results were compared with those obtained using a Spanish version of the Porter algorithm. Findings - The conclusion is that the main strength of lemmatization is its accuracy, whereas its main limitation is the underanalysis of variant forms. Originality/value - The report outlines the potential of transducers in their application to normalization processes.

Source

Journal of documentation. 62(2006) no.3, S.328-349

0.026599348 = product of:
  0.07093159 = sum of:
    0.04174695 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04174695 = score(doc=1845,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1845, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1845)
    0.023667008 = weight(_text_:of in 1845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023667008 = score(doc=1845,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.36650562 = fieldWeight in 1845, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1845)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 1845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=1845,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 1845, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

It may be possible to improve the quality of automatic indexing systems by using complex descriptors, for example, phrases, in addition to the simple descriptors (words or word stems) that are normally used in automatically constructed representations of document content. This study is directed toward the goal of developing effective methods of identifying phrases in natural language text from which good quality phrase descriptors can be constructed. The effectiveness of one method, a simple nonsyntactic phrase indexing procedure, has been tested on five experimental document collections. The results have been analyzed in order to identify the inadequacies of the procedure, and to determine what kinds of information about text structure are needed in order to construct phrase descriptors that are good indicators of document content. Two primary conclusions have been reached: (1) In the retrieval experiments, the nonsyntactic phrase construction procedure did not consistently yield substantial improvements in effectiveness. It is therefore not likely that phrase indexing of this kind will prove to be an important method of enhancing the performance of automatic document indexing and retrieval systems in operational environments. (2) Many of the shortcomings of the nonsyntactic approach can be overcome by incorporating syntactic information into the phrase construction process. However, a general syntactic analysis facility may be required, since many useful sources of phrases cannot be exploited if only a limited inventory of syntactic patterns can be recognized. Further research should be conducted into methods of incorporating automatic syntactic analysis into content analysis for document retrieval.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 40(1989) no.2, S.115-132

0.026421588 = product of:
  0.07045757 = sum of:
    0.04418082 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04418082 = score(doc=3650,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.3536936 = fieldWeight in 3650, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3650)
    0.021862645 = weight(_text_:of in 3650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021862645 = score(doc=3650,freq=48.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 3650, product of:
          6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
            48.0 = termFreq=48.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3650)
    0.004414106 = product of:
      0.008828212 = sum of:
        0.008828212 = weight(_text_:on in 3650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008828212 = score(doc=3650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.097201325 = fieldWeight in 3650, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

The attempt to computerize a process, such as indexing, abstracting, classifying, or retrieving information, begins with an analysis of the process into its intellectual and nonintellectual components. That part of the process which is amenable to computerization is mechanical or algorithmic. What is not is intellectual or creative and requires human intervention. Gerard Salton has been an innovator, experimenter, and promoter in the area of mechanized information systems since the early 1960s. He has been particularly ingenious at analyzing the process of information retrieval into its algorithmic components. He received a doctorate in applied mathematics from Harvard University before moving to the computer science department at Cornell, where he developed a prototype automatic retrieval system called SMART. Working with this system he and his students contributed for over a decade to our theoretical understanding of the retrieval process. On a more practical level, they have contributed design criteria for operating retrieval systems. The following selection presents one of the early descriptions of the SMART system; it is valuable as it shows the direction automatic retrieval methods were to take beyond simple word-matching techniques. These include various word normalization techniques to improve recall, for instance, the separation of words into stems and affixes; the correlation and clustering, using statistical association measures, of related terms; and the identification, using a concept thesaurus, of synonymous, broader, narrower, and sibling terms. They include, as weIl, techniques, both linguistic and statistical, to deal with the thorny problem of how to automatically extract from texts index terms that consist of more than one word. They include weighting techniques and various documentrequest matching algorithms. Significant among the latter are those which produce a retrieval output of citations ranked in relevante order. During the 1970s, Salton and his students went an to further refine these various techniques, particularly the weighting and statistical association measures. Many of their early innovations seem commonplace today. Some of their later techniques are still ahead of their time and await technological developments for implementation. The particular focus of the selection that follows is an the evaluation of a particular component of the SMART system, a multilingual thesaurus. By mapping English language expressions and their German equivalents to a common concept number, the thesaurus permitted the automatic processing of German language documents against English language queries and vice versa. The results of the evaluation, as it turned out, were somewhat inconclusive. However, this SMART experiment suggested in a bold and optimistic way how one might proceed to answer such complex questions as What is meant by retrieval language compatability? How it is to be achieved, and how evaluated?

Footnote

Original in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science 21(1970) no.3, S.187-194.

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al

0.0264084 = product of:
  0.0704224 = sum of:
    0.04174695 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04174695 = score(doc=896,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 896, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=896)
    0.02087234 = weight(_text_:of in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02087234 = score(doc=896,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 896, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=896)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=896,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 896, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=896)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

This paper deals with Swedish full text retrieval and the problem of morphological variation of query terms in the document database. The effects of combination of indexing strategies with query terms on retrieval effectiveness were studied. Three of five tested combinations involved indexing strategies that used conflation, in the form of normalization. Further, two of these three combinations used indexing strategies that employed compound splitting. Normalization and compound splitting were performed by SWETWOL, a morphological analyzer for the Swedish language. A fourth combination attempted to group related terms by right hand truncation of query terms. The four combinations were compared to each other and to a baseline combination, where no attempt was made to counteract the problem of morphological variation of query terms in the document database. The five combinations were evaluated under six different user scenarios, where each scenario simulated a certain user type. The four alternative combinations outperformed the baseline, for each user scenario. The truncation combination had the best performance under each user scenario. The main conclusion of the paper is that normalization and right hand truncation (performed by a search expert) enhanced retrieval effectiveness in comparison to the baseline. The performance of the three combinations of indexing strategies with query terms based on normalization was not far below the performance of the truncation combination.

0.020201609 = product of:
  0.053870954 = sum of:
    0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025048172 = score(doc=4476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
    0.022201622 = weight(_text_:of in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022201622 = score(doc=4476,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
    0.006621159 = product of:
      0.013242318 = sum of:
        0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013242318 = score(doc=4476,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

This paper presents a morphological classification of languages from the IR perspective. Linguistic typology research has shown that the morphological complexity of every language in the world can be described by two variables, index of synthesis and index of fusion. These variables provide a theoretical basis for IR research handling morphological issues. A common theoretical framework is needed in particular because of the increasing significance of cross-language retrieval research and CLIR systems processing different languages. The paper elaborates the linguistic morphological typology for the purposes of IR research. It studies how the indexes of synthesis and fusion could be used as practical tools in mono- and cross-lingual IR research. The need for semantic and syntactic typologies is discussed. The paper also reviews studies made in different languages on the effects of morphology and stemming in IR.

Source

Journal of documentation. 57(2001) no.3, S.330-348

0.019306757 = product of:
  0.051484685 = sum of:
    0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025048172 = score(doc=2910,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2910, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2910)
    0.014968331 = weight(_text_:of in 2910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014968331 = score(doc=2910,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 2910, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2910)
    0.011468184 = product of:
      0.022936368 = sum of:
        0.022936368 = weight(_text_:on in 2910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022936368 = score(doc=2910,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 2910, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2910)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Due to natural language morphology, words can take on various morphological forms. Morphological normalisation - often used in information retrieval and text mining systems - conflates morphological variants of a word to a single representative form. In this paper, we describe an approach to lexicon-based inflectional normalisation. This approach is in between stemming and lemmatisation, and is suitable for morphological normalisation of inflectionally complex languages. To eliminate the immense effort required to compile the lexicon by hand, we focus on the problem of acquiring automatically an inflectional morphological lexicon from raw corpora. We propose a convenient and highly expressive morphology representation formalism on which the acquisition procedure is based. Our approach is applied to the morphologically complex Croatian language, but it should be equally applicable to other languages of similar morphological complexity. Experimental results show that our approach can be used to acquire a lexicon whose linguistic quality allows for rather good normalisation performance.

0.016797265 = product of:
  0.06718906 = sum of:
    0.047231287 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047231287 = score(doc=2570,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 2570, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2570)
    0.019957775 = weight(_text_:of in 2570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019957775 = score(doc=2570,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 2570, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2570)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Discusses natural languages and the natural language implementations of Westlaw's full-text legal documents, Westlaw Is Natural. Natural language is not aritificial intelligence but a hybrid of linguistics, mathematics and statistics. Provides 3 classes of retrieval models. Explains how Westlaw processes an English query. Assesses WIN. Covers WIN enhancements; the natural language features of Congressional Quarterly's Washington Alert using a document for a query; the personal librarian front end search software and Dowquest from Dow Jones news/retrieval. Conmsiders whether natural language encourages fuzzy thinking and whether Boolean logic will still be needed

0.013815052 = product of:
  0.055260208 = sum of:
    0.033397563 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033397563 = score(doc=3632,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
    0.021862645 = weight(_text_:of in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021862645 = score(doc=3632,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

It is possible to locate over 60% of indexing terms used in the Current List of Medical Literature by analysing the titles of the articles. Citation indexes contain 'noise' and lack many pertinent citations. Mechanical indexing or analysis of text must begin with some linguistic technique. Discusses Harris' methods of structural linguistics, discourse analysis and transformational analysis. Provides 3 examples with references, abstracts and index entries

Source

Journal of information science. 18(1992) no.5, S.343-354

0.011504992 = product of:
  0.046019968 = sum of:
    0.033397563 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 36) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033397563 = score(doc=36,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 36, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=36)
    0.012622404 = weight(_text_:of in 36) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012622404 = score(doc=36,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 36, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=36)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Analyzed a special type of man-mchine interaction, that of searching an information system with natural language. A model for full text processing for information retrieval was proposed that considered the system's users and how they employ information. Describes how INIST (the National Institute for Scientific and Technical Information) is developing computer assisted indexing as an aid to improving relevance when retrieving information from bibliographic data banks

0.008750451 = product of:
  0.035001803 = sum of:
    0.012622404 = weight(_text_:of in 6752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012622404 = score(doc=6752,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 6752, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6752)
    0.0223794 = product of:
      0.0447588 = sum of:
        0.0447588 = weight(_text_:22 in 6752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0447588 = score(doc=6752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

AutoSlog is a system that addresses the knowledge engineering bottleneck for information extraction. AutoSlog automatically creates domain specific dictionaries for information extraction, given an appropriate training corpus. Describes experiments with AutoSlog in terrorism, joint ventures and microelectronics domains. Compares the performance of AutoSlog across the 3 domains, discusses the lessons learned and presents results from 2 experiments which demonstrate that novice users can generate effective dictionaries using AutoSlog

Date

6. 3.1997 16:22:15

0.008253391 = product of:
  0.033013564 = sum of:
    0.022089208 = weight(_text_:of in 1811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022089208 = score(doc=1811,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 1811, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1811)
    0.010924355 = product of:
      0.02184871 = sum of:
        0.02184871 = weight(_text_:on in 1811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02184871 = score(doc=1811,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 1811, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1811)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

With the rapid rise in numbers of electronic documents on the Internet, how to effectively assign topics to documents become an important issue. Current research in this area focuses on the behaviour of nouns in documents. Proposes, however, that nouns and verbs together contribute to the process of topic identification. Constructs a mathematical model taking into account the following factors: word importance, word frequency, word co-occurence, and word distance. Preliminary experiments ahow that the performance of the proposed model is equivalent to that of a human being

Source

Bulletin of the Library Association of China. 1997, no.59, Dec., S.43-58

0.007669405 = product of:
  0.06135524 = sum of:
    0.06135524 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06135524 = score(doc=6386,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.49118498 = fieldWeight in 6386, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6386)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Retrieval Tests sind die anerkannteste Methode, um neue Verfahren der Inhaltserschließung gegenüber traditionellen Verfahren zu rechtfertigen. Im Rahmen einer Diplomarbeit wurden zwei grundsätzlich unterschiedliche Systeme der automatischen inhaltlichen Erschließung anhand der Pressedatenbank des Verlagshauses Gruner + Jahr (G+J) getestet und evaluiert. Untersucht wurde dabei natürlichsprachliches Retrieval im Vergleich zu Booleschem Retrieval. Bei den beiden Systemen handelt es sich zum einen um Autonomy von Autonomy Inc. und DocCat, das von IBM an die Datenbankstruktur der G+J Pressedatenbank angepasst wurde. Ersteres ist ein auf natürlichsprachlichem Retrieval basierendes, probabilistisches System. DocCat demgegenüber basiert auf Booleschem Retrieval und ist ein lernendes System, das auf Grund einer intellektuell erstellten Trainingsvorlage indexiert. Methodisch geht die Evaluation vom realen Anwendungskontext der Textdokumentation von G+J aus. Die Tests werden sowohl unter statistischen wie auch qualitativen Gesichtspunkten bewertet. Ein Ergebnis der Tests ist, dass DocCat einige Mängel gegenüber der intellektuellen Inhaltserschließung aufweist, die noch behoben werden müssen, während das natürlichsprachliche Retrieval von Autonomy in diesem Rahmen und für die speziellen Anforderungen der G+J Textdokumentation so nicht einsetzbar ist

0.007168902 = product of:
  0.028675608 = sum of:
    0.017640345 = weight(_text_:of in 5816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017640345 = score(doc=5816,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 5816, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5816)
    0.0110352645 = product of:
      0.022070529 = sum of:
        0.022070529 = weight(_text_:on in 5816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022070529 = score(doc=5816,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 5816, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5816)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Millions of messages are produced on microblog platforms every day, leading to the pressing need for automatic identification of key points from the massive texts. To absorb salient content from the vast bulk of microblog posts, this article focuses on the task of microblog keyphrase extraction. In previous work, most efforts treat messages as independent documents and might suffer from the data sparsity problem exhibited in short and informal microblog posts. On the contrary, we propose to enrich contexts via exploiting conversations initialized by target posts and formed by their replies, which are generally centered around relevant topics to the target posts and therefore helpful for keyphrase identification. Concretely, we present a neural keyphrase extraction framework, which has 2 modules: a conversation context encoder and a keyphrase tagger. The conversation context encoder captures indicative representation from their conversation contexts and feeds the representation into the keyphrase tagger, and the keyphrase tagger extracts salient words from target posts. The 2 modules were trained jointly to optimize the conversation context encoding and keyphrase extraction processes. In the conversation context encoder, we leverage hierarchical structures to capture the word-level indicative representation and message-level indicative representation hierarchically. In both of the modules, we apply character-level representations, which enables the model to explore morphological features and deal with the out-of-vocabulary problem caused by the informal language style of microblog messages. Extensive comparison results on real-life data sets indicate that our model outperforms state-of-the-art models from previous studies.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.5, S.553-567

0.007096812 = product of:
  0.028387249 = sum of:
    0.020662563 = weight(_text_:of in 1139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020662563 = score(doc=1139,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 1139, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1139)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 1139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=1139,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 1139, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1139)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

In light of AI (Artificial Intelligence) and NLP (Natural language processing) technologies, this article examines the feasibility of using AI/NLP models to enhance the subject indexing of digital resources. While BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) models are widely used in scholarly communities, the authors assess whether BERT models can be used in machine-assisted indexing in the Project Gutenberg collection, through suggesting Library of Congress subject headings filtered by certain Library of Congress Classification subclass labels. The findings of this study are informative for further research on BERT models to assist with automatic subject indexing for digital library collections.

0.006713625 = product of:
  0.0268545 = sum of:
    0.019129815 = weight(_text_:of in 6681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019129815 = score(doc=6681,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 6681, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6681)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 6681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=6681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 6681, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Presents a new approach to text analysis for automating the key phrase indexing process, using artificial intelligence techniques. This mimics the behaviour of human experts by using a rule base consisting of insertion and deletion rules generated by subject-matter experts. The insertion rules are based on the idea that some phrases found in a text imply or trigger other phrases. The deletion rules apply to semantically ambiguous phrases where text presence alone does not determine appropriateness as a key phrase. The insertion and deletion rules are used to transform a list of found phrases to a list of key phrases for indexing a document. Statistical data are provided to demonstrate the performance of this expert rule based system