Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0025370158 = product of:
  0.0050740317 = sum of:
    0.0050740317 = product of:
      0.010148063 = sum of:
        0.010148063 = weight(_text_:a in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010148063 = score(doc=977,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 977, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=977)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The research study as reported here is an attempt to explore the possibilities of an AI/ML-based semi-automated indexing system in a library setup to handle large volumes of documents. It uses the Python virtual environment to install and configure an open source AI environment (named Annif) to feed the LOD (Linked Open Data) dataset of Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) as a standard KOS (Knowledge Organisation System). The framework deployed the Turtle format of LCSH after cleaning the file with Skosify, applied an array of backend algorithms (namely TF-IDF, Omikuji, and NN-Ensemble) to measure relative performance, and selected Snowball as an analyser. The training of Annif was conducted with a large set of bibliographic records populated with subject descriptors (MARC tag 650$a) and indexed by trained LIS professionals. The training dataset is first treated with MarcEdit to export it in a format suitable for OpenRefine, and then in OpenRefine it undergoes many steps to produce a bibliographic record set suitable to train Annif. The framework, after training, has been tested with a bibliographic dataset to measure indexing efficiencies, and finally, the automated indexing framework is integrated with data wrangling software (OpenRefine) to produce suggested headings on a mass scale. The entire framework is based on open-source software, open datasets, and open standards.

Type

a

0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=967,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 967, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=967)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Automated text categorization methods are of broad relevance for domain experts since they free researchers and practitioners from manual labeling, save their resources (e.g., time, labor), and enrich the data with information helpful to study substantive questions. Despite a variety of newly developed categorization methods that require substantial amounts of annotated data, little is known about how to build models when (a) labeling texts with categories requires substantial domain expertise and/or in-depth reading, (b) only a few annotated documents are available for model training, and (c) no relevant computational resources, such as pretrained models, are available. In a collaboration with environmental scientists who study the socio-ecological impact of funded biodiversity conservation projects, we develop a method that integrates deep domain expertise with computational models to automatically categorize project reports based on a small sample of 93 annotated documents. Our results suggest that domain expertise can improve automated categorization and that the magnitude of these improvements is influenced by the experts' understanding of categories and their confidence in their annotation, as well as data sparsity and additional category characteristics such as the portion of exclusive keywords that can identify a category.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=724,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 724, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=724)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Wikidata gadget, CCLitBox, for the automated classification of literary authors and works by a faceted classification and using Linked Open Data (LOD) is presented. The tool reproduces the classification algorithm of class O Literature of the Colon Classification and uses data freely available in Wikidata to create Colon Classification class numbers. CCLitBox is totally free and enables any user to classify literary authors and their works; it is easily accessible to everybody; it uses LOD from Wikidata but missing data for classification can be freely added if necessary; it is readymade for any cooperative and networked project.

Type

a

0.0017899501 = product of:
  0.0035799001 = sum of:
    0.0035799001 = product of:
      0.0071598003 = sum of:
        0.0071598003 = weight(_text_:a in 175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071598003 = score(doc=175,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 175, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=175)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to develop a model for automated classification of old digitised texts to the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), using machine-learning methods. Design/methodology/approach The general research approach is inherent to design science research, in which the problem of UDC assignment of the old, digitised texts is addressed by developing a machine-learning classification model. A corpus of 70,000 scholarly texts, fully bibliographically processed by librarians, was used to train and test the model, which was used for classification of old texts on a corpus of 200,000 items. Human experts evaluated the performance of the model. Findings Results suggest that machine-learning models can correctly assign the UDC at some level for almost any scholarly text. Furthermore, the model can be recommended for the UDC assignment of older texts. Ten librarians corroborated this on 150 randomly selected texts. Research limitations/implications The main limitations of this study were unavailability of labelled older texts and the limited availability of librarians. Practical implications The classification model can provide a recommendation to the librarians during their classification work; furthermore, it can be implemented as an add-on to full-text search in the library databases. Social implications The proposed methodology supports librarians by recommending UDC classifiers, thus saving time in their daily work. By automatically classifying older texts, digital libraries can provide a better user experience by enabling structured searches. These contribute to making knowledge more widely available and useable. Originality/value These findings contribute to the field of automated classification of bibliographical information with the usage of full texts, especially in cases in which the texts are old, unstructured and in which archaic language and vocabulary are used.

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=453,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper, we present a case study of how well subject metadata (comprising headings from an international classification scheme) has been deployed in a national data catalogue, and how often data seekers use subject metadata when searching for data. Through an analysis of user search behaviour as recorded in search logs, we find evidence that users utilise the subject metadata for data discovery. Since approximately half of the records ingested by the catalogue did not include subject metadata at the time of harvest, we experimented with automatic subject classification approaches in order to enrich these records and to provide additional support for user search and data discovery. Our results show that automatic methods work well for well represented categories of subject metadata, and these categories tend to have features that can distinguish themselves from the other categories. Our findings raise implications for data catalogue providers; they should invest more effort to enhance the quality of data records by providing an adequate description of these records for under-represented subject categories.

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=744,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 744, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=744)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Classifying papers according to the fields of knowledge is critical to clearly understand the dynamics of scientific (sub)fields, their leading questions, and trends. Most studies rely on journal categories defined by popular databases such as WoS or Scopus, but some experts find that those categories may not correctly map the existing subfields nor identify the subfield of a specific article. This study addresses the classification problem using data from each paper (Abstract, Title, Keywords, and the KeyWords Plus) and the help of experts to identify the existing subfields and journals exclusive of each subfield. These "exclusive journals" are critical to obtain, through a pattern detection procedure that uses machine learning techniques (from software NVivo), a list of the frequent terms that are specific to each subfield. With that list of terms and with the help of optimization procedures, we can identify to which subfield each paper most likely belongs. This study can contribute to support scientific policy-makers, funding, and research institutions-via more accurate academic performance evaluations-, to support editors in their tasks to redefine the scopes of journals, and to support popular databases in their processes of refining categories.

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=419,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 419, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=419)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a