Search (43 results, page 2 of 3)

0.0015522675 = product of:
  0.003104535 = sum of:
    0.003104535 = product of:
      0.009313605 = sum of:
        0.009313605 = weight(_text_:a in 36) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009313605 = score(doc=36,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 36, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=36)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

Type

a

0.0015029765 = product of:
  0.003005953 = sum of:
    0.003005953 = product of:
      0.009017859 = sum of:
        0.009017859 = weight(_text_:a in 5480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009017859 = score(doc=5480,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 5480, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5480)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

(Automatic) document classification is generally defined as content-based assignment of one or more predefined categories to documents. Usually, machine learning, statistical pattern recognition, or neural network approaches are used to construct classifiers automatically. In this paper we thoroughly evaluate a wide variety of these methods on a document classification task for German text. We evaluate different feature construction and selection methods and various classifiers. Our main results are: (1) feature selection is necessary not only to reduce learning and classification time, but also to avoid overfitting (even for Support Vector Machines); (2) surprisingly, our morphological analysis does not improve classification quality compared to a letter 5-gram approach; (3) Support Vector Machines are significantly better than all other classification methods

Type

a

0.0015029765 = product of:
  0.003005953 = sum of:
    0.003005953 = product of:
      0.009017859 = sum of:
        0.009017859 = weight(_text_:a in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009017859 = score(doc=4476,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0015029765 = product of:
  0.003005953 = sum of:
    0.003005953 = product of:
      0.009017859 = sum of:
        0.009017859 = weight(_text_:a in 2910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009017859 = score(doc=2910,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2910, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2910)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0013720235 = product of:
  0.002744047 = sum of:
    0.002744047 = product of:
      0.008232141 = sum of:
        0.008232141 = weight(_text_:a in 6029) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008232141 = score(doc=6029,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 6029, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6029)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Over the past few years, temporal information processing and temporal database management have increasingly become hot topics. Nevertheless, only a few researchers have investigated these areas in the Chinese language. This lays down the objective of our research: to exploit Chinese language processing techniques for temporal information extraction and concept reasoning. In this article, we first study the mechanism for expressing time in Chinese. On the basis of the study, we then design a general frame structure for maintaining the extracted temporal concepts and propose a system for extracting time-dependent information from Hong Kong financial news. In the system, temporal knowledge is represented by different types of temporal concepts (TTC) and different temporal relations, including absolute and relative relations, which are used to correlate between action times and reference times. In analyzing a sentence, the algorithm first determines the situation related to the verb. This in turn will identify the type of temporal concept associated with the verb. After that, the relevant temporal information is extracted and the temporal relations are derived. These relations link relevant concept frames together in chronological order, which in turn provide the knowledge to fulfill users' queries, e.g., for question-answering (i.e., Q&A) applications

Type

a

0.0013720235 = product of:
  0.002744047 = sum of:
    0.002744047 = product of:
      0.008232141 = sum of:
        0.008232141 = weight(_text_:a in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008232141 = score(doc=896,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 896, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=896)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0013720235 = product of:
  0.002744047 = sum of:
    0.002744047 = product of:
      0.008232141 = sum of:
        0.008232141 = weight(_text_:a in 1842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008232141 = score(doc=1842,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 1842, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1842)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0013582341 = product of:
  0.0027164682 = sum of:
    0.0027164682 = product of:
      0.008149404 = sum of:
        0.008149404 = weight(_text_:a in 2314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008149404 = score(doc=2314,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 2314, 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=2314)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001344303 = product of:
  0.002688606 = sum of:
    0.002688606 = product of:
      0.008065818 = sum of:
        0.008065818 = weight(_text_:a in 932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008065818 = score(doc=932,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 932, 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=932)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001344303 = product of:
  0.002688606 = sum of:
    0.002688606 = product of:
      0.008065818 = sum of:
        0.008065818 = weight(_text_:a in 1372) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008065818 = score(doc=1372,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1372, 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=1372)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001344303 = product of:
  0.002688606 = sum of:
    0.002688606 = product of:
      0.008065818 = sum of:
        0.008065818 = weight(_text_:a in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008065818 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3122, 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=3122)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001344303 = product of:
  0.002688606 = sum of:
    0.002688606 = product of:
      0.008065818 = sum of:
        0.008065818 = weight(_text_:a in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008065818 = score(doc=5599,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5599, 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=5599)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0012674211 = product of:
  0.0025348421 = sum of:
    0.0025348421 = product of:
      0.007604526 = sum of:
        0.007604526 = weight(_text_:a in 3502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007604526 = score(doc=3502,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 3502, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3502)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Lexical analysis is a fundamental operation in both query processing and automatic indexing, and filtering stoplist words is an important step in the automatic indexing process. Presents basic algorithms and data structures for lexical analysis, and shows how stoplist word removal can be efficiently incorporated into lexical analysis

Type

a

0.0012524803 = product of:
  0.0025049606 = sum of:
    0.0025049606 = product of:
      0.007514882 = sum of:
        0.007514882 = weight(_text_:a in 1845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007514882 = score(doc=1845,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 1845, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1845)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0011855639 = product of:
  0.0023711277 = sum of:
    0.0023711277 = product of:
      0.0071133827 = sum of:
        0.0071133827 = weight(_text_:a in 1264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071133827 = score(doc=1264,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 1264, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1264)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Over the past decade, the volume of information available digitally over the Internet has grown enormously. Technical developments in the area of search, such as Google's Page Rank algorithm, have proved so good at serving relevant results that Internet search has become integrated into daily human activity. One can endlessly explore topics of interest simply by querying and reading through the resulting links. Yet, although search engines are well known for providing relevant results based on users' queries, users do not always receive the results they are looking for. Google's Director of Research describes clickstream evidence of frustrated users repeatedly reformulating queries and searching through page after page of results. Given the general quality of search engine results, one must consider the possibility that the frustrated user's query is not effective; that is, it does not describe the essence of the user's interest. Indeed, extensive research into human search behavior has found that humans are not very effective at formulating good search queries that describe what they are interested in. Ideally, the user should simply point to a portion of text that sparked the user's interest, and a system should automatically formulate a search query that captures the essence of the text. In this paper, we describe an implemented system that provides this capability. We first describe how our work differs from existing work in automatic query formulation, and propose a new method for improved quantification of the relevance of candidate search terms drawn from input text using phrase-level analysis. We then propose an implementable method designed to provide relevant queries based on a user's text input. We demonstrate the quality of our results and performance of our system through experimental studies. Our results demonstrate that our system produces relevant search terms with roughly two-thirds precision and recall compared to search terms selected by experts, and that typical users find significantly more relevant results (31% more relevant) more quickly (64% faster) using our system than self-formulated search queries. Further, we show that our implementation can scale to request loads of up to 10 requests per second within current online responsiveness expectations (<2-second response times at the highest loads tested).

Type

a

0.0011202524 = product of:
  0.0022405048 = sum of:
    0.0022405048 = product of:
      0.0067215143 = sum of:
        0.0067215143 = weight(_text_:a in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0067215143 = score(doc=3313,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0011202524 = product of:
  0.0022405048 = sum of:
    0.0022405048 = product of:
      0.0067215143 = sum of:
        0.0067215143 = weight(_text_:a in 3412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0067215143 = score(doc=3412,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3412, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3412)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0011202524 = product of:
  0.0022405048 = sum of:
    0.0022405048 = product of:
      0.0067215143 = sum of:
        0.0067215143 = weight(_text_:a in 5816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0067215143 = score(doc=5816,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 5816, 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=5816)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0011089934 = product of:
  0.0022179869 = sum of:
    0.0022179869 = product of:
      0.0066539603 = sum of:
        0.0066539603 = weight(_text_:a in 3645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0066539603 = score(doc=3645,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 3645, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3645)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Source

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

Type

a

8.9620193E-4 = product of:
  0.0017924039 = sum of:
    0.0017924039 = product of:
      0.0053772116 = sum of:
        0.0053772116 = weight(_text_:a in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0053772116 = score(doc=3632,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a