Search (96 results, page 3 of 5)

0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 3.1996 13:22:21

0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=530,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 530, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=530)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.1, S.17-28

0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 5671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=5671,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5671, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2001 13:14:48

0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 5291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=5291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 17:32:00

0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 5195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=5195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5195, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5195)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Große Aufmerksamkeit richtet sich im Moment auf das Potential von automatisierten Methoden in der Sacherschließung und deren Interaktionsmöglichkeiten mit intellektuellen Methoden. In diesem Kontext befasst sich der vorliegende Beitrag mit den folgenden Fragen: Was sind die Anforderungen an bibliothekarische Metadaten aus Sicht der Wissenschaft? Was wird gebraucht, um den Informationsbedarf der Fachcommunities zu bedienen? Und was bedeutet das entsprechend für die Automatisierung der Metadatenerstellung und -pflege? Dieser Beitrag fasst die von der Autorin eingenommene Position in einem Impulsvortrag und der Podiumsdiskussion beim Workshop der FAG "Erschließung und Informationsvermittlung" des GBV zusammen. Der Workshop fand im Rahmen der 22. Verbundkonferenz des GBV statt.

0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 5344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=5344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5344, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5344)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Spätestens seit dem Deutschen Bibliothekartag 2018 hat sich die Diskussion zu den automatischen Verfahren der Inhaltserschließung der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek von einer politisch geführten Diskussion in eine Qualitätsdiskussion verwandelt. Der folgende Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit Fragen der Qualität von Inhaltserschließung in digitalen Zeiten, wo heterogene Erzeugnisse unterschiedlicher Verfahren aufeinandertreffen und versucht, wichtige Anforderungen an Qualität zu definieren. Dieser Tagungsbeitrag fasst die vom Autor als Impulse vorgetragenen Ideen beim Workshop der FAG "Erschließung und Informationsvermittlung" des GBV am 29. August 2018 in Kiel zusammen. Der Workshop fand im Rahmen der 22. Verbundkonferenz des GBV statt.

0.011789299 = product of:
  0.023578597 = sum of:
    0.023578597 = product of:
      0.047157194 = sum of:
        0.047157194 = weight(_text_:systems in 963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047157194 = score(doc=963,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 963, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In image retrieval, most systems lack user-centred evaluation since they are assessed by some chosen ground truth dataset. The results reported through precision and recall assessed against the ground truth are thought of as being an acceptable surrogate for the judgment of real users. Much current research focuses on automatically assigning keywords to images for enhancing retrieval effectiveness. However, evaluation methods are usually based on system-level assessment, e.g. classification accuracy based on some chosen ground truth dataset. In this paper, we present a qualitative evaluation methodology for automatic image indexing systems. The automatic indexing task is formulated as one of image annotation, or automatic metadata generation for images. The evaluation is composed of two individual methods. First, the automatic indexing annotation results are assessed by human subjects. Second, the subjects are asked to annotate some chosen images as the test set whose annotations are used as ground truth. Then, the system is tested by the test set whose annotation results are judged against the ground truth. Only one of these methods is reported for most systems on which user-centred evaluation are conducted. We believe that both methods need to be considered for full evaluation. We also provide an example evaluation of our system based on this methodology. According to this study, our proposed evaluation methodology is able to provide deeper understanding of the system's performance.

0.010890487 = product of:
  0.021780973 = sum of:
    0.021780973 = product of:
      0.043561947 = sum of:
        0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 2313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043561947 = score(doc=2313,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 2313, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2313)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The task of producing satisfactory indexes by automatic means has been tackled on two fronts: by statistical analysis of text and by attempting content analysis of the text in much the same way as a human indexer does. Though statistical techniques have a lot to offer for free-text database systems, neither method has had much success with back-of-the-book indexing. This review examines some problems associated with the application of natural-language processing techniques to book texts. - Vgl. auch die Erwiderung von K.P. Jones

0.010890487 = product of:
  0.021780973 = sum of:
    0.021780973 = product of:
      0.043561947 = sum of:
        0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043561947 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Expert systems for information management. 5(1992) no.1, S.25-41

0.010890487 = product of:
  0.021780973 = sum of:
    0.021780973 = product of:
      0.043561947 = sum of:
        0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 6627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043561947 = score(doc=6627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 6627, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

ACM transactions on information systems. 11(1993) no.2, S.143-164

0.010890487 = product of:
  0.021780973 = sum of:
    0.021780973 = product of:
      0.043561947 = sum of:
        0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 7414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043561947 = score(doc=7414,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 7414, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7414)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Research in the Knowledge-Based Systems Group of the University of Twente in the Netherlands is aimed at reducing information overload. One approach is to support indexing by the traditional method of assigning content descriptions to find documents. A second way is to use a computer program to determine what the document says without descriptors. Discusses automated indexing and direct access to information

0.010890487 = product of:
  0.021780973 = sum of:
    0.021780973 = product of:
      0.043561947 = sum of:
        0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043561947 = score(doc=620,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 620, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=620)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Presents an automatic indexing technique for compound words suitable for an agglutinative language, specifically Korean. Discusses some construction conditions for compound words and the rules for decomposing compound words to enhance the exhaustivity of indexing, demonstrating that this system, mutual information, enhances both the exhaustivity of indexing and the specifity of terms. Suggests that the construction conditions and rules for decomposition presented may be used in multilingual information retrieval systems to translate the indexing terms of the specific language into those of the language required

0.010605331 = product of:
  0.021210661 = sum of:
    0.021210661 = product of:
      0.042421322 = sum of:
        0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042421322 = score(doc=1746,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1746, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1746)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2015 9:17:30

0.010605331 = product of:
  0.021210661 = sum of:
    0.021210661 = product of:
      0.042421322 = sum of:
        0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 5628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042421322 = score(doc=5628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.6, S.465-469

0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=601,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 601, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article describes an evaluation of the Kea automatic keyphrase extraction algorithm. Document keyphrases are conventionally used as concise descriptors of document content, and are increasingly used in novel ways, including document clustering, searching and browsing interfaces, and retrieval engines. However, it is costly and time consuming to manually assign keyphrases to documents, motivating the development of tools that automatically perform this function. Previous studies have evaluated Kea's performance by measuring its ability to identify author keywords and keyphrases, but this methodology has a number of well-known limitations. The results presented in this article are based on evaluations by human assessors of the quality and appropriateness of Kea keyphrases. The results indicate that, in general, Kea produces keyphrases that are rated positively by human assessors. However, typical Kea settings can degrade performance, particularly those relating to keyphrase length and domain specificity. We found that for some settings, Kea's performance is better than that of similar systems, and that Kea's ranking of extracted keyphrases is effective. We also determined that author-specified keyphrases appear to exhibit an inherent ranking, and that they are rated highly and therefore suitable for use in training and evaluation of automatic keyphrasing systems.

0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 3300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=3300,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 3300, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, 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.

0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 1518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=1518,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 1518, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1518)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This new textbook examines the motivations and the different algorithms for automatic document summarization (ADS). We performed a recent state of the art. The book shows the main problems of ADS, difficulties and the solutions provided by the community. It presents recent advances in ADS, as well as current applications and trends. The approaches are statistical, linguistic and symbolic. Several exemples are included in order to clarify the theoretical concepts. The books currently available in the area of Automatic Document Summarization are not recent. Powerful algorithms have been developed in recent years that include several applications of ADS. The development of recent technology has impacted on the development of algorithms and their applications. The massive use of social networks and the new forms of the technology requires the adaptation of the classical methods of text summarizers. This is a new textbook on Automatic Text Summarization, based on teaching materials used in two or one-semester courses. It presents a extensive state-of-art and describes the new systems on the subject. Previous automatic summarization books have been either collections of specialized papers, or else authored books with only a chapter or two devoted to the field as a whole. In other hand, the classic books on the subject are not recent.

Content

Automatic Text Summarization Some Important Concepts 23 Single document Summarization 53 Guided Multi-Document Summarization 109 Emerging systems 151 Source and DomainSpecific Summarization 179 Text Abstracting 219 Evaluating Document Summaries 243 Conclusion 275 Information Retrieval NLP and Automatic Text Summarization 281 Automatic Text Summarization Resources 305

0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 1845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=1845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 1845, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.

0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 4005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=4005,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 4005, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4005)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Subject indexing is an intellectually intensive process that has many inherent uncertainties. Existing manual subject indexing systems generally produce binary outcomes for whether or not to assign an indexing term. This does not sufficiently reflect the extent to which the indexing terms are associated with the documents. On the other hand, the idea of probabilistic or weighted indexing was proposed a long time ago and has seen success in capturing uncertainties in the automatic indexing process. One hurdle to overcome in implementing weighted indexing in manual subject indexing systems is the practical burden that could be added to the already intensive indexing process. This study proposes a method to infer automatically the associations between subject terms and documents through text mining. By uncovering the connections between MeSH descriptors and document text, we are able to derive the weights of MeSH descriptors manually assigned to documents. Our initial results suggest that the inference method is feasible and promising. The study has practical implications for improving subject indexing practice and providing better support for information retrieval.

0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 5400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=5400,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 5400, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5400)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Automatic subject prediction is a desirable feature for modern digital library systems, as manual indexing can no longer cope with the rapid growth of digital collections. It is also desirable to be able to identify a small set of entities (e.g., authors, citations, bibliographic records) which are most relevant to a query. This gets more difficult when the amount of data increases dramatically. Data sparsity and model scalability are the major challenges to solving this type of extreme multilabel classification problem automatically. In this paper, we propose to address this problem in two steps: we first embed different types of entities into the same semantic space, where similarity could be computed easily; second, we propose a novel non-parametric method to identify the most relevant entities in addition to direct semantic similarities. We show how effectively this approach predicts even very specialised subjects, which are associated with few documents in the training set and are more problematic for a classifier.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Special Issue: Research Information Systems and Science Classifications; including papers from "Trajectories for Research: Fathoming the Promise of the NARCIS Classification," 27-28 September 2018, The Hague, The Netherlands.