Search (78 results, page 1 of 4)

0.055963814 = product of:
  0.13990954 = sum of:
    0.114014424 = weight(_text_:social in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.114014424 = score(doc=2918,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.6230592 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
    0.025895113 = product of:
      0.051790226 = sum of:
        0.051790226 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051790226 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20741826 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential of applying the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) as an established knowledge organization system (KOS) for enhancing social tagging, with the ultimate purpose of improving subject indexing and information retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - Over 11.000 Intute metadata records in politics were used. Totally, 28 politics students were each given four tasks, in which a total of 60 resources were tagged in two different configurations, one with uncontrolled social tags only and another with uncontrolled social tags as well as suggestions from a controlled vocabulary. The controlled vocabulary was DDC comprising also mappings from the Library of Congress Subject Headings. Findings - The results demonstrate the importance of controlled vocabulary suggestions for indexing and retrieval: to help produce ideas of which tags to use, to make it easier to find focus for the tagging, to ensure consistency and to increase the number of access points in retrieval. The value and usefulness of the suggestions proved to be dependent on the quality of the suggestions, both as to conceptual relevance to the user and as to appropriateness of the terminology. Originality/value - No research has investigated the enhancement of social tagging with suggestions from the DDC, an established KOS, in a user trial, comparing social tagging only and social tagging enhanced with the suggestions. This paper is a final reflection on all aspects of the study.

Theme

Social tagging

0.03127821 = product of:
  0.07819553 = sum of:
    0.056434255 = weight(_text_:social in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056434255 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
    0.021761272 = product of:
      0.043522544 = sum of:
        0.043522544 = weight(_text_:22 in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043522544 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A study was done to test the effectiveness of retrieval using title word searching. It was based on actual search profiles used in the Mechanized Information Center at Ohio State University, in order ro replicate as closely as possible actual searching conditions. Fewer than 50% of the relevant titles were retrieved by keywords in titles. The low rate of retrieval can be attributes to three sources: titles themselves, user and information specialist ignorance of the subject vocabulary in use, and to general language problems. Across fields it was found that the social sciences had the best retrieval rate, with science having the next best, and arts and humanities the lowest. Ways to enhance and supplement keyword in title searching on the computer and in printed indexes are discussed.

Date

14. 3.1996 13:22:21

0.02884543 = product of:
  0.07211357 = sum of:
    0.031803396 = weight(_text_:technology in 1518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031803396 = score(doc=1518,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 1518, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1518)
    0.04031018 = weight(_text_:social in 1518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04031018 = score(doc=1518,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 1518, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1518)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

0.027316181 = product of:
  0.06829045 = sum of:
    0.055855434 = weight(_text_:social in 1442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055855434 = score(doc=1442,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.30523545 = fieldWeight in 1442, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1442)
    0.012435013 = product of:
      0.024870027 = sum of:
        0.024870027 = weight(_text_:22 in 1442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024870027 = score(doc=1442,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1442, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1442)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The main objective of this research was to analyze whether there was a characteristic distribution behavior of relevant terms over a scientific text that could contribute as a criterion for their process of automatic indexing. The terms considered in this study were only full noun phrases contained in the texts themselves. The texts were considered a total of 98 doctoral theses of the eight areas of knowledge in a same university. Initially, 20 full noun phrases were automatically extracted from each text as candidates to be the most relevant terms, and each author of each text assigned a relevance value 0-6 (not relevant and highly relevant, respectively) for each of the 20 noun phrases sent. Only, 22.1 % of noun phrases were considered not relevant. A relevance values of the terms assigned by the authors were associated with their positions in the text. Each full noun phrases found in the text was considered as a valid linear position. The results that were obtained showed values resulting from this distribution by considering two types of position: linear, with values consolidated into ten equal consecutive parts; and structural, considering parts of the text (such as introduction, development and conclusion). As a result of considerable importance, all areas of knowledge related to the Natural Sciences showed a characteristic behavior in the distribution of relevant terms, as well as all areas of knowledge related to Social Sciences showed the same characteristic behavior of distribution, but distinct from the Natural Sciences. The difference of the distribution behavior between the Natural and Social Sciences can be clearly visualized through graphs. All behaviors, including the general behavior of all areas of knowledge together, were characterized in polynomial equations and can be applied in future as criteria for automatic indexing. Until the present date this work has become inedited of for two reasons: to present a method for characterizing the distribution of relevant terms in a scientific text, and also, through this method, pointing out a quantitative trait difference between the Natural and Social Sciences.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.02511943 = product of:
  0.062798575 = sum of:
    0.022488397 = weight(_text_:technology in 2161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022488397 = score(doc=2161,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2161, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2161)
    0.04031018 = weight(_text_:social in 2161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04031018 = score(doc=2161,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 2161, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2161)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Millions of micro texts are published every day on Twitter. Identifying the sentiment present in them can be helpful for measuring the frame of mind of the public, their satisfaction with respect to a product, or their support of a social event. In this context, polarity classification is a subfield of sentiment analysis focused on determining whether the content of a text is objective or subjective, and in the latter case, if it conveys a positive or a negative opinion. Most polarity detection techniques tend to take into account individual terms in the text and even some degree of linguistic knowledge, but they do not usually consider syntactic relations between words. This article explores how relating lexical, syntactic, and psychometric information can be helpful to perform polarity classification on Spanish tweets. We provide an evaluation for both shallow and deep linguistic perspectives. Empirical results show an improved performance of syntactic approaches over pure lexical models when using large training sets to create a classifier, but this tendency is reversed when small training collections are used.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.9, S.1799-1816

0.022573702 = product of:
  0.11286851 = sum of:
    0.11286851 = weight(_text_:social in 4344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11286851 = score(doc=4344,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.6167971 = fieldWeight in 4344, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4344)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Issue

Pt.2: Expanded journal coverage for Current Contents on Diskette, includes social and behavioral sciences

0.021298012 = product of:
  0.05324503 = sum of:
    0.03148376 = weight(_text_:technology in 5291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03148376 = score(doc=5291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 5291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5291)
    0.021761272 = product of:
      0.043522544 = sum of:
        0.043522544 = weight(_text_:22 in 5291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043522544 = score(doc=5291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 17:32:00

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.6, S.753-767

0.018156925 = product of:
  0.045392312 = sum of:
    0.027265735 = weight(_text_:technology in 4285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027265735 = score(doc=4285,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.19948712 = fieldWeight in 4285, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4285)
    0.018126579 = product of:
      0.036253158 = sum of:
        0.036253158 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036253158 = score(doc=4285,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20741826 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.17478286 = fieldWeight in 4285, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4285)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The introduction and growth of the World Wide Web (WWW, or Web) have resulted in a profound change in the way individuals and organizations access information. In terms of volume, nature, and accessibility, the characteristics of electronic information are significantly different from those of even five or six years ago. Control of, and access to, this flood of information rely heavily an automated techniques for indexing and retrieval. According to Gudivada, Raghavan, Grosky, and Kasanagottu (1997, p. 58), "The ability to search and retrieve information from the Web efficiently and effectively is an enabling technology for realizing its full potential." Almost 93 percent of those surveyed consider the Web an "indispensable" Internet technology, second only to e-mail (Graphie, Visualization & Usability Center, 1998). Although there are other ways of locating information an the Web (browsing or following directory structures), 85 percent of users identify Web pages by means of a search engine (Graphie, Visualization & Usability Center, 1998). A more recent study conducted by the Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society confirms the finding that searching for information is second only to e-mail as an Internet activity (Nie & Ebring, 2000, online). In fact, Nie and Ebring conclude, "... the Internet today is a giant public library with a decidedly commercial tilt. The most widespread use of the Internet today is as an information search utility for products, travel, hobbies, and general information. Virtually all users interviewed responded that they engaged in one or more of these information gathering activities."
Techniques for automated indexing and information retrieval (IR) have been developed, tested, and refined over the past 40 years, and are well documented (see, for example, Agosti & Smeaton, 1996; BaezaYates & Ribeiro-Neto, 1999a; Frakes & Baeza-Yates, 1992; Korfhage, 1997; Salton, 1989; Witten, Moffat, & Bell, 1999). With the introduction of the Web, and the capability to index and retrieve via search engines, these techniques have been extended to a new environment. They have been adopted, altered, and in some Gases extended to include new methods. "In short, search engines are indispensable for searching the Web, they employ a variety of relatively advanced IR techniques, and there are some peculiar aspects of search engines that make searching the Web different than more conventional information retrieval" (Gordon & Pathak, 1999, p. 145). The environment for information retrieval an the World Wide Web differs from that of "conventional" information retrieval in a number of fundamental ways. The collection is very large and changes continuously, with pages being added, deleted, and altered. Wide variability between the size, structure, focus, quality, and usefulness of documents makes Web documents much more heterogeneous than a typical electronic document collection. The wide variety of document types includes images, video, audio, and scripts, as well as many different document languages. Duplication of documents and sites is common. Documents are interconnected through networks of hyperlinks. Because of the size and dynamic nature of the Web, preprocessing all documents requires considerable resources and is often not feasible, certainly not an the frequent basis required to ensure currency. Query length is usually much shorter than in other environments-only a few words-and user behavior differs from that in other environments. These differences make the Web a novel environment for information retrieval (Baeza-Yates & Ribeiro-Neto, 1999b; Bharat & Henzinger, 1998; Huang, 2000).

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 37(2003), S.91-126

0.012464336 = product of:
  0.062321678 = sum of:
    0.062321678 = weight(_text_:technology in 1911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062321678 = score(doc=1911,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.45597056 = fieldWeight in 1911, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1911)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Discusses research into the application of adaptive pattern recognition technology to enable effective retrieval from scanned document images. Describes application at the British Library of Excalibur EFS software which uses adaptive pattern recognition technology to provide access to digital information in its native forms, fuzzy searching retrieval and automatic indexing capabilities. It was used to make specialist printed catalogues and indexes accessible on computer via content based indexes

Source

Library technology news. 1995, no.16, S.4-8

0.012170292 = product of:
  0.030425731 = sum of:
    0.017990718 = weight(_text_:technology in 5499) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017990718 = score(doc=5499,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 5499, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5499)
    0.012435013 = product of:
      0.024870027 = sum of:
        0.024870027 = weight(_text_:22 in 5499) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024870027 = score(doc=5499,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5499, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5499)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose Modern mathematicians and scientists of math-related disciplines often use Document Preparation Systems (DPS) to write and Computer Algebra Systems (CAS) to calculate mathematical expressions. Usually, they translate the expressions manually between DPS and CAS. This process is time-consuming and error-prone. The purpose of this paper is to automate this translation. This paper uses Maple and Mathematica as the CAS, and LaTeX as the DPS. Design/methodology/approach Bruce Miller at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) developed a collection of special LaTeX macros that create links from mathematical symbols to their definitions in the NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions (DLMF). The authors are using these macros to perform rule-based translations between the formulae in the DLMF and CAS. Moreover, the authors develop software to ease the creation of new rules and to discover inconsistencies. Findings The authors created 396 mappings and translated 58.8 percent of DLMF formulae (2,405 expressions) successfully between Maple and DLMF. For a significant percentage, the special function definitions in Maple and the DLMF were different. An atomic symbol in one system maps to a composite expression in the other system. The translator was also successfully used for automatic verification of mathematical online compendia and CAS. The evaluation techniques discovered two errors in the DLMF and one defect in Maple. Originality/value This paper introduces the first translation tool for special functions between LaTeX and CAS. The approach improves error-prone manual translations and can be used to verify mathematical online compendia and CAS.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.009948011 = product of:
  0.049740054 = sum of:
    0.049740054 = product of:
      0.09948011 = sum of:
        0.09948011 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09948011 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986) no.6, S.465-476

0.008704509 = product of:
  0.043522544 = sum of:
    0.043522544 = product of:
      0.08704509 = sum of:
        0.08704509 = weight(_text_:22 in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08704509 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20.10.2000 12:22:23

0.008704509 = product of:
  0.043522544 = sum of:
    0.043522544 = product of:
      0.08704509 = sum of:
        0.08704509 = weight(_text_:22 in 6265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08704509 = score(doc=6265,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6265, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information outlook. 9(2005) no.8, S.22-23

0.008062037 = product of:
  0.04031018 = sum of:
    0.04031018 = weight(_text_:social in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04031018 = score(doc=3627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A very important extension of the traditional domain of knowledge organization (KO) arises from attempts to incorporate techniques devised in the computer science domain for automatic concept extraction and for grouping, categorizing, clustering and otherwise organizing knowledge using mechanical means. Four specific terms have emerged to identify the most prevalent techniques: machine learning, clustering, automatic indexing, and automatic classification. Our study presents three domain analytical case analyses in search of answers. The first case relies on citations located using the ISKO-supported "Knowledge Organization Bibliography." The second case relies on works in both Web of Science and SCOPUS. Case three applies co-word analysis and citation analysis to the contents of the papers in the present special issue. We observe scholars involved in "clustering" and "automatic classification" who share common thematic emphases. But we have found no coherence, no common activity and no social semantics. We have not found a research front, or a common teleology within the KO domain. We also have found a lively group of authors who have succeeded in submitting papers to this special issue, and their work quite interestingly aligns with the case studies we report. There is an emphasis on KO for information retrieval; there is much work on clustering (which involves conceptual points within texts) and automatic classification (which involves semantic groupings at the meta-document level).

0.008062037 = product of:
  0.04031018 = sum of:
    0.04031018 = weight(_text_:social in 128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04031018 = score(doc=128,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 128, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=128)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Künstliche Intelligenz (KI) und natürliches Sprachverstehen (natural language understanding/NLU) verändern viele Aspekte unseres Alltags und unserer Arbeitsweise. Besondere Prominenz erlangte NLU durch Sprachassistenten wie Siri, Alexa und Google Now. NLU bietet Firmen und Einrichtungen das Potential, Prozesse effizienter zu gestalten und Mehrwert aus textuellen Inhalten zu schöpfen. So sind NLU-Lösungen in der Lage, komplexe, unstrukturierte Dokumente inhaltlich zu erschließen. Für die semantische Textanalyse hat das NLU-Team des IAIS Sprachmodelle entwickelt, die mit Deep-Learning-Verfahren trainiert werden. Die NLU-Suite analysiert Dokumente, extrahiert Eckdaten und erstellt bei Bedarf sogar eine strukturierte Zusammenfassung. Mit diesen Ergebnissen, aber auch über den Inhalt der Dokumente selbst, lassen sich Dokumente vergleichen oder Texte mit ähnlichen Informationen finden. KI-basierten Sprachmodelle sind der klassischen Verschlagwortung deutlich überlegen. Denn sie finden nicht nur Texte mit vordefinierten Schlagwörtern, sondern suchen intelligent nach Begriffen, die in ähnlichem Zusammenhang auftauchen oder als Synonym gebraucht werden. Der Vortrag liefert eine Einordnung der Begriffe "Künstliche Intelligenz" und "Natural Language Understanding" und zeigt Möglichkeiten, Grenzen, aktuelle Forschungsrichtungen und Methoden auf. Anhand von Praxisbeispielen wird anschließend demonstriert, wie NLU zur automatisierten Belegverarbeitung, zur Katalogisierung von großen Datenbeständen wie Nachrichten und Patenten und zur automatisierten thematischen Gruppierung von Social Media Beiträgen und Publikationen genutzt werden kann.

0.0074610077 = product of:
  0.03730504 = sum of:
    0.03730504 = product of:
      0.07461008 = sum of:
        0.07461008 = weight(_text_:22 in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07461008 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

14. 6.2015 22:12:44

0.0074610077 = product of:
  0.03730504 = sum of:
    0.03730504 = product of:
      0.07461008 = sum of:
        0.07461008 = weight(_text_:22 in 5887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07461008 = score(doc=5887,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5887, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5887)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Wissen in Aktion: Wege des Knowledge Managements. 22. Online-Tagung der DGI, Frankfurt am Main, 2.-4.5.2000. Proceedings. Hrsg.: R. Schmidt

0.0074610077 = product of:
  0.03730504 = sum of:
    0.03730504 = product of:
      0.07461008 = sum of:
        0.07461008 = weight(_text_:22 in 2051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07461008 = score(doc=2051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2051, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

14. 6.2015 22:12:56

0.0074610077 = product of:
  0.03730504 = sum of:
    0.03730504 = product of:
      0.07461008 = sum of:
        0.07461008 = weight(_text_:22 in 5629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07461008 = score(doc=5629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5629, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5629)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.2, S.163-166

0.0072506317 = product of:
  0.036253158 = sum of:
    0.036253158 = product of:
      0.072506316 = sum of:
        0.072506316 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072506316 = score(doc=2566,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20741826 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.3495657 = fieldWeight in 2566, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2566)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

We present a bibliometric study of a corpus of 839 bibliographic references about automatic indexing, covering the period 1956-2000. We analyse the distribution of authors and works, the obsolescence and its dispersion, and the distribution of the literature by topic, year, and source type. We conclude that: (i) there has been a constant interest on the part of researchers; (ii) the most studied topics were the techniques and methods employed and the general aspects of automatic indexing; (iii) the productivity of the authors does fit a Lotka distribution (Dmax=0.02 and critical value=0.054); (iv) the annual aging factor is 95%; and (v) the dispersion of the literature is low.