Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

0.030405348 = product of:
  0.106418714 = sum of:
    0.061148047 = weight(_text_:digital in 1056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061148047 = score(doc=1056,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16201277 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.37742734 = fieldWeight in 1056, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1056)
    0.04527067 = product of:
      0.09054134 = sum of:
        0.09054134 = weight(_text_:mathematics in 1056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09054134 = score(doc=1056,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25945482 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.31699 = idf(docFreq=216, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04107254 = queryNorm
            0.34896767 = fieldWeight in 1056, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.31699 = idf(docFreq=216, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1056)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The ever increasing amount of digitally available information is curse and blessing at the same time. On the one hand, users have increasingly large amounts of information at their fingertips. On the other hand, the assessment and refinement of web search results becomes more and more tiresome and difficult for non-experts in a domain. Therefore, established digital libraries offer specialized collections with a certain degree of quality. This quality can largely be attributed to the great effort invested into semantic enrichment of the provided documents e.g. by annotating their documents with respect to a domain-specific taxonomy. This process is still done manually in many domains, e.g. chemistry CAS, medicine MeSH, or mathematics MSC. But due to the growing amount of data, this manual task gets more and more time consuming and expensive. The only solution for this problem seems to employ automated classification algorithms, but from evaluations done in previous research, conclusions to a real world scenario are difficult to make. We therefore conducted a large scale feasibility study on a real world data set from one of the biggest mathematical digital libraries, i.e. Zentralblatt MATH, with special focus on its practical applicability.

Source

15th International Conference on Asia-Pacific Digital Libraries ICADL 2013. Bangalore, India. [to appear, 2013]

0.024852479 = product of:
  0.08698367 = sum of:
    0.04461906 = weight(_text_:processing in 3015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04461906 = score(doc=3015,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1662677 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 3015, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3015)
    0.042364612 = weight(_text_:digital in 3015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042364612 = score(doc=3015,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16201277 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 3015, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3015)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

We analyze the linguistic evolution of selected scientific disciplines over a 30-year time span (1970s to 2000s). Our focus is on four highly specialized disciplines at the boundaries of computer science that emerged during that time: computational linguistics, bioinformatics, digital construction, and microelectronics. Our analysis is driven by the question whether these disciplines develop a distinctive language use-both individually and collectively-over the given time period. The data set is the English Scientific Text Corpus (scitex), which includes texts from the 1970s/1980s and early 2000s. Our theoretical basis is register theory. In terms of methods, we combine corpus-based methods of feature extraction (various aggregated features [part-of-speech based], n-grams, lexico-grammatical patterns) and automatic text classification. The results of our research are directly relevant to the study of linguistic variation and languages for specific purposes (LSP) and have implications for various natural language processing (NLP) tasks, for example, authorship attribution, text mining, or training NLP tools.

0.02320403 = product of:
  0.0812141 = sum of:
    0.03718255 = weight(_text_:processing in 3463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03718255 = score(doc=3463,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1662677 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 3463, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3463)
    0.044031553 = weight(_text_:techniques in 3463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044031553 = score(doc=3463,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18093403 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.24335694 = fieldWeight in 3463, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3463)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Document clustering is an important tool, but it is not yet widely used in practice probably because of its high computational complexity. This article explores techniques of high-speed rough clustering of documents, assuming that it is sometimes necessary to obtain a clustering result in a shorter time, although the result is just an approximate outline of document clusters. A promising approach for such clustering is to reduce the number of documents to be checked for generating cluster vectors in the leader-follower clustering algorithm. Based on this idea, the present article proposes a modified Crouch algorithm and incomplete single-pass leader-follower algorithm. Also, a two-stage grouping technique, in which the first stage attempts to decrease the number of documents to be processed in the second stage by applying a quick merging technique, is developed. An experiment using a part of the Reuters corpus RCV1 showed empirically that both the modified Crouch and the incomplete single-pass leader-follower algorithms achieve clustering results more efficiently than the original methods, and also improved the effectiveness of clustering results. On the other hand, the two-stage grouping technique did not reduce the processing time in this experiment.

0.02320403 = product of:
  0.0812141 = sum of:
    0.03718255 = weight(_text_:processing in 2161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03718255 = score(doc=2161,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1662677 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 2161, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2161)
    0.044031553 = weight(_text_:techniques in 2161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044031553 = score(doc=2161,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18093403 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.24335694 = fieldWeight in 2161, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2161)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

0.021766264 = product of:
  0.07618192 = sum of:
    0.062270015 = weight(_text_:techniques in 1107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062270015 = score(doc=1107,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18093403 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.34415868 = fieldWeight in 1107, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1107)
    0.013911906 = product of:
      0.027823811 = sum of:
        0.027823811 = weight(_text_:22 in 1107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027823811 = score(doc=1107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14382903 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04107254 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1107, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Retrieval of disease information is often based on several key aspects such as etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and symptoms of diseases. Automatic identification of disease aspect information is thus essential. In this article, I model the aspect identification problem as a text classification (TC) problem in which a disease aspect corresponds to a category. The disease aspect classification problem poses two challenges to classifiers: (a) a medical text often contains information about multiple aspects of a disease and hence produces noise for the classifiers and (b) text classifiers often cannot extract the textual parts (i.e., passages) about the categories of interest. I thus develop a technique, PETC (Passage Extractor for Text Classification), that extracts passages (from medical texts) for the underlying text classifiers to classify. Case studies on thousands of Chinese and English medical texts show that PETC enhances a support vector machine (SVM) classifier in classifying disease aspect information. PETC also performs better than three state-of-the-art classifier enhancement techniques, including two passage extraction techniques for text classifiers and a technique that employs term proximity information to enhance text classifiers. The contribution is of significance to evidence-based medicine, health education, and healthcare decision support. PETC can be used in those application domains in which a text to be classified may have several parts about different categories.

Date

28.10.2013 19:22:57

0.010894983 = product of:
  0.07626488 = sum of:
    0.07626488 = weight(_text_:techniques in 2836) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07626488 = score(doc=2836,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18093403 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.42150658 = fieldWeight in 2836, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2836)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Classification is the process of assigning objects to pre-defined classes based on observations or characteristics of those objects, and there are many approaches to performing this task. The overall objective of this study is to demonstrate the use of two learning techniques to analyze the results of a manual classification system. Our sample consisted of 1,026 documents, from the ACM Computing Classification System, classified by their authors as belonging to one of the groups of the classification system: "H.3 Information Storage and Retrieval." A singular value decomposition of the documents' weighted term-frequency matrix was used to represent each document in a 50-dimensional vector space. The analysis of the representation using both supervised (decision tree) and unsupervised (clustering) techniques suggests that two pairs of the ACM classes are closely related to each other in the vector space. Class 1 (Content Analysis and Indexing) is closely related to Class 3 (Information Search and Retrieval), and Class 4 (Systems and Software) is closely related to Class 5 (Online Information Services). Further analysis was performed to test the diffusion of the words in the two classes using both cosine and Euclidean distance.

0.008895717 = product of:
  0.062270015 = sum of:
    0.062270015 = weight(_text_:techniques in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062270015 = score(doc=3627,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18093403 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.34415868 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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).

0.0071324534 = product of:
  0.04992717 = sum of:
    0.04992717 = weight(_text_:digital in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04992717 = score(doc=472,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16201277 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Semantic Digital Archives held in conjunction with the 16th Int. Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL) on September 27, 2012 in Paphos, Cyprus [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-912/proceedings.pdf]. Eds.: A. Mitschik et al

0.006374152 = product of:
  0.04461906 = sum of:
    0.04461906 = weight(_text_:processing in 3464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04461906 = score(doc=3464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1662677 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 3464, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3464)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

We propose a new hybrid clustering framework to incorporate text mining with bibliometrics in journal set analysis. The framework integrates two different approaches: clustering ensemble and kernel-fusion clustering. To improve the flexibility and the efficiency of processing large-scale data, we propose an information-based weighting scheme to leverage the effect of multiple data sources in hybrid clustering. Three different algorithms are extended by the proposed weighting scheme and they are employed on a large journal set retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) database. The clustering performance of the proposed algorithms is systematically evaluated using multiple evaluation methods, and they were cross-compared with alternative methods. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed weighted hybrid clustering strategy is superior to other methods in clustering performance and efficiency. The proposed approach also provides a more refined structural mapping of journal sets, which is useful for monitoring and detecting new trends in different scientific fields.

0.006374152 = product of:
  0.04461906 = sum of:
    0.04461906 = weight(_text_:processing in 1547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04461906 = score(doc=1547,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1662677 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 1547, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1547)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This article presents a novel method for extracting knowledge from Wikipedia and a classification schema for annotating the extracted knowledge. Unlike the majority of approaches in the literature, we use the raw Wikipedia text for knowledge acquisition. The main assumption made is that the concepts classified under the same node in a taxonomy are described in a comparable way in Wikipedia. The annotation of the extracted knowledge is done at two levels: ontological and logical. The extracted properties are evaluated in the traditional way, that is, by computing the precision of the extraction procedure and in a clustering task. The second method of evaluation is seldom used in the natural language processing community, but it is regularly employed in cognitive psychology.

0.0060520875 = product of:
  0.042364612 = sum of:
    0.042364612 = weight(_text_:digital in 1071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042364612 = score(doc=1071,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16201277 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 1071, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1071)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper aims to provide an overview of automatic classification research, which focuses on issues related to the automatic classification of documents in a library environment. The review covers literature published in mainstream library and information science studies. The review was done on literature published in both academic and professional LIS journals and other documents. This review reveals that basically three types of research are being done on automatic classification: 1) hierarchical classification using different library classification schemes, 2) text categorization and document categorization using different type of classifiers with or without using training documents, and 3) automatic bibliographic classification. Predominantly this research is directed towards solving problems of organization of digital documents in an online environment. However, very little research is devoted towards solving the problems of arrangement of physical documents.

0.0060520875 = product of:
  0.042364612 = sum of:
    0.042364612 = weight(_text_:digital in 2470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042364612 = score(doc=2470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16201277 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 2470, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2470)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Das sprunghafte Anwachsen der Menge digital verfügbarer Dokumente gepaart mit dem Zeit- und Personalmangel an wissenschaftlichen Bibliotheken legt den Einsatz von halb- oder vollautomatischen Verfahren für die verbale und klassifikatorische Inhaltserschließung nahe. Nach einer kurzen allgemeinen Einführung in die gängige Methodik beleuchtet dieser Artikel eine Reihe von Projekten zur automatisierten Klassifizierung aus dem Zeitraum 2007-2012 und aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum. Ein Großteil der vorgestellten Projekte verwendet Methoden des Maschinellen Lernens aus der Künstlichen Intelligenz, arbeitet meist mit angepassten Versionen einer kommerziellen Software und bezieht sich in der Regel auf die Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). Als Datengrundlage dienen Metadatensätze, Abstracs, Inhaltsverzeichnisse und Volltexte in diversen Datenformaten. Die abschließende Analyse enthält eine Anordnung der Projekte nach einer Reihe von verschiedenen Kriterien und eine Zusammenfassung der aktuellen Lage und der größten Herausfordungen für automatisierte Klassifizierungsverfahren.

0.006009608 = product of:
  0.042067256 = sum of:
    0.042067256 = weight(_text_:processing in 5051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042067256 = score(doc=5051,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1662677 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.2530092 = fieldWeight in 5051, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5051)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Automatic text classification is the task of organizing documents into pre-determined classes, generally using machine learning algorithms. Generally speaking, it is one of the most important methods to organize and make use of the gigantic amounts of information that exist in unstructured textual format. Text classification is a widely studied research area of language processing and text mining. In traditional text classification, a document is represented as a bag of words where the words in other words terms are cut from their finer context i.e. their location in a sentence or in a document. Only the broader context of document is used with some type of term frequency information in the vector space. Consequently, semantics of words that can be inferred from the finer context of its location in a sentence and its relations with neighboring words are usually ignored. However, meaning of words, semantic connections between words, documents and even classes are obviously important since methods that capture semantics generally reach better classification performances. Several surveys have been published to analyze diverse approaches for the traditional text classification methods. Most of these surveys cover application of different semantic term relatedness methods in text classification up to a certain degree. However, they do not specifically target semantic text classification algorithms and their advantages over the traditional text classification. In order to fill this gap, we undertake a comprehensive discussion of semantic text classification vs. traditional text classification. This survey explores the past and recent advancements in semantic text classification and attempts to organize existing approaches under five fundamental categories; domain knowledge-based approaches, corpus-based approaches, deep learning based approaches, word/character sequence enhanced approaches and linguistic enriched approaches. Furthermore, this survey highlights the advantages of semantic text classification algorithms over the traditional text classification algorithms.

Source

Information processing and management. 54(2018) no.6, S.1129-1153

0.005311793 = product of:
  0.03718255 = sum of:
    0.03718255 = weight(_text_:processing in 2496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03718255 = score(doc=2496,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1662677 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 2496, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2496)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Descriptive document clustering aims at discovering clusters of semantically interrelated documents together with meaningful labels to summarize the content of each document cluster. In this work, we propose a novel descriptive clustering framework, referred to as CEDL. It relies on the formulation and generation of 2 types of heterogeneous objects, which correspond to documents and candidate phrases, using multilevel similarity information. CEDL is composed of 5 main processing stages. First, it simultaneously maps the documents and candidate phrases into a common co-embedded space that preserves higher-order, neighbor-based proximities between the combined sets of documents and phrases. Then, it discovers an approximate cluster structure of documents in the common space. The third stage extracts promising topic phrases by constructing a discriminant model where documents along with their cluster memberships are used as training instances. Subsequently, the final cluster labels are selected from the topic phrases using a ranking scheme using multiple scores based on the extracted co-embedding information and the discriminant output. The final stage polishes the initial clusters to reduce noise and accommodate the multitopic nature of documents. The effectiveness and competitiveness of CEDL is demonstrated qualitatively and quantitatively with experiments using document databases from different application fields.

0.005311793 = product of:
  0.03718255 = sum of:
    0.03718255 = weight(_text_:processing in 2706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03718255 = score(doc=2706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1662677 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 2706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2706)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Information processing and management. 49(2013) no.6, S.1181-1193

0.005311793 = product of:
  0.03718255 = sum of:
    0.03718255 = weight(_text_:processing in 2722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03718255 = score(doc=2722,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1662677 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 2722, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2722)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Information processing and management. 49(2013) no.1, S.83-98

0.005311793 = product of:
  0.03718255 = sum of:
    0.03718255 = weight(_text_:processing in 5036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03718255 = score(doc=5036,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1662677 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 5036, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5036)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Information processing and management. 56(2019) no.1, S.167-191

0.005311793 = product of:
  0.03718255 = sum of:
    0.03718255 = weight(_text_:processing in 5041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03718255 = score(doc=5041,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1662677 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 5041, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5041)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Information processing and management. 56(2019) no.1, S.228-246

0.005311793 = product of:
  0.03718255 = sum of:
    0.03718255 = weight(_text_:processing in 5055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03718255 = score(doc=5055,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1662677 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 5055, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5055)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Information processing and management. 54(2018) no.4, S.593-608

0.0042494345 = product of:
  0.02974604 = sum of:
    0.02974604 = weight(_text_:processing in 4095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02974604 = score(doc=4095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1662677 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.17890452 = fieldWeight in 4095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4095)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In traditional text classification, classes are mutually exclusive, i.e. it is not possible to have one text or text fragment classified into more than one class. On the other hand, in multi-label classification an individual text may belong to several classes simultaneously. This type of classification is required by a large number of current applications such as big data classification, images and video annotation. Supervised learning is the most used type of machine learning in the classification task. It requires large quantities of labeled data and the intervention of a human tagger in the creation of the training sets. When the data sets become very large or heavily noisy, this operation can be tedious, prone to error and time consuming. In this case, semi-supervised learning, which requires only few labels, is a better choice. In this paper, we study and evaluate several methods to address the problem of multi-label classification using semi-supervised learning and data from social networks. First, we propose a linguistic pre-processing involving tokeni-sation, recognition of named entities and hashtag segmentation in order to decrease the noise in this type of massive and unstructured real data and then we perform a word sense disambiguation using WordNet. Second, several experiments related to multi-label classification and semi-supervised learning are carried out on these data sets and compared to each other. These evaluations compare the results of the approaches considered. This paper proposes a method for combining semi-supervised methods with a graph method for the extraction of subjects in social networks using a multi-label classification approach. Experiments show that the performance of the proposed model increases in 4 p.p. the precision of the classification when compared to a baseline.