Search (35 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Sparck Jones, K."
  1. Kay, M.; Sparck Jones, K.: Automated language processing (1971) 0.02 
    0.020281035 = product of:
  0.04056207 = sum of:
    0.04056207 = product of:
      0.060843103 = sum of:
        0.0500889 = weight(_text_:m in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0500889 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11386436 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.4398997 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
        0.0107542 = weight(_text_:a in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0107542 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05276016 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  2. Sparck Jones, K.: Automatic keyword classification for information retrieval (1971) 0.01 
    0.010435188 = product of:
  0.020870376 = sum of:
    0.020870376 = product of:
      0.062611125 = sum of:
        0.062611125 = weight(_text_:m in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062611125 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11386436 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.54987466 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    m
  3. Sparck Jones, K.; Galliers, J.R.: Evaluating natural language processing systems : an analysis and review (1996) 0.01 
    0.009553901 = product of:
  0.019107802 = sum of:
    0.019107802 = product of:
      0.028661702 = sum of:
        0.018783338 = weight(_text_:m in 2934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018783338 = score(doc=2934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11386436 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.1649624 = fieldWeight in 2934, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2934)
        0.009878363 = weight(_text_:a in 2934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009878363 = score(doc=2934,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.05276016 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2934, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2934)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This comprehensive state-of-the-art book is the first devoted to the important and timely issue of evaluating NLP systems. It addresses the whole area of NLP system evaluation, including aims and scope, problems and methodology. The authors provide a wide-ranging and careful analysis of evaluation concepts, reinforced with extensive illustrations; they relate systems to their environments and develop a framework for proper evaluation. The discussion of principles is completed by a detailed review of practice and strategies in the field, covering both systems for specific tasks, like translation, and core language processors. The methodology lessons drawn from the analysis and review are applied in a series of example cases. A comprehensive bibliography, a subject index, and term glossary are included
    Type
    m
  4. Robertson, S.E.; Sparck Jones, K.: Simple, proven approaches to text retrieval (1997) 0.01 
    0.0077225026 = product of:
  0.015445005 = sum of:
    0.015445005 = product of:
      0.023167508 = sum of:
        0.015652781 = weight(_text_:m in 4532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015652781 = score(doc=4532,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11386436 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 4532, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4532)
        0.007514726 = weight(_text_:a in 4532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007514726 = score(doc=4532,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.05276016 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4532, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4532)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This technical note describes straightforward techniques for document indexing and retrieval that have been solidly established through extensive testing and are easy to apply. They are useful for many different types of text material, are viable for very large files, and have the advantage that they do not require special skills or training for searching, but are easy for end users. The document and text retrieval methods described here have a sound theoretical basis, are well established by extensive testing, and the ideas involved are now implemented in some commercial retrieval systems. Testing in the last few years has, in particular, shown that the methods presented here work very well with full texts, not only title and abstracts, and with large files of texts containing three quarters of a million documents. These tests, the TREC Tests (see Harman 1993 - 1997; IP&M 1995), have been rigorous comparative evaluations involving many different approaches to information retrieval. These techniques depend an the use of simple terms for indexing both request and document texts; an term weighting exploiting statistical information about term occurrences; an scoring for request-document matching, using these weights, to obtain a ranked search output; and an relevance feedback to modify request weights or term sets in iterative searching. The normal implementation is via an inverted file organisation using a term list with linked document identifiers, plus counting data, and pointers to the actual texts. The user's request can be a word list, phrases, sentences or extended text.
  5. Sparck Jones, K.; Kay, M.: Linguistik und Informationswissenschaft (1976) 0.01 
    0.0059030335 = product of:
  0.011806067 = sum of:
    0.011806067 = product of:
      0.0354182 = sum of:
        0.0354182 = weight(_text_:m in 3) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0354182 = score(doc=3,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11386436 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.31105608 = fieldWeight in 3, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    m
  6. Needham, R.M.; Sparck Jones, K.: Keywords and clumps (1985) 0.01 
    0.0058702566 = product of:
  0.011740513 = sum of:
    0.011740513 = product of:
      0.01761077 = sum of:
        0.010956947 = weight(_text_:m in 3645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010956947 = score(doc=3645,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11386436 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.09622806 = fieldWeight in 3645, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3645)
        0.0066538225 = weight(_text_:a in 3645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0066538225 = score(doc=3645,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.05276016 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 3645, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3645)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The selection that follows was chosen as it represents "a very early paper an the possibilities allowed by computers an documentation." In the early 1960s computers were being used to provide simple automatic indexing systems wherein keywords were extracted from documents. The problem with such systems was that they lacked vocabulary control, thus documents related in subject matter were not always collocated in retrieval. To improve retrieval by improving recall is the raison d'être of vocabulary control tools such as classifications and thesauri. The question arose whether it was possible by automatic means to construct classes of terms, which when substituted, one for another, could be used to improve retrieval performance? One of the first theoretical approaches to this question was initiated by R. M. Needham and Karen Sparck Jones at the Cambridge Language Research Institute in England.t The question was later pursued using experimental methodologies by Sparck Jones, who, as a Senior Research Associate in the Computer Laboratory at the University of Cambridge, has devoted her life's work to research in information retrieval and automatic naturai language processing. Based an the principles of numerical taxonomy, automatic classification techniques start from the premise that two objects are similar to the degree that they share attributes in common. When these two objects are keywords, their similarity is measured in terms of the number of documents they index in common. Step 1 in automatic classification is to compute mathematically the degree to which two terms are similar. Step 2 is to group together those terms that are "most similar" to each other, forming equivalence classes of intersubstitutable terms. The technique for forming such classes varies and is the factor that characteristically distinguishes different approaches to automatic classification. The technique used by Needham and Sparck Jones, that of clumping, is described in the selection that follows. Questions that must be asked are whether the use of automatically generated classes really does improve retrieval performance and whether there is a true eco nomic advantage in substituting mechanical for manual labor. Several years after her work with clumping, Sparck Jones was to observe that while it was not wholly satisfactory in itself, it was valuable in that it stimulated research into automatic classification. To this it might be added that it was valuable in that it introduced to libraryl information science the methods of numerical taxonomy, thus stimulating us to think again about the fundamental nature and purpose of classification. In this connection it might be useful to review how automatically derived classes differ from those of manually constructed classifications: 1) the manner of their derivation is purely a posteriori, the ultimate operationalization of the principle of literary warrant; 2) the relationship between members forming such classes is essentially statistical; the members of a given class are similar to each other not because they possess the class-defining characteristic but by virtue of sharing a family resemblance; and finally, 3) automatically derived classes are not related meaningfully one to another, that is, they are not ordered in traditional hierarchical and precedence relationships.
    Source
    Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al
    Type
    a
  7. Sparck Jones, K.: Synonymy and semantic classification (1986) 0.01 
    0.005217594 = product of:
  0.010435188 = sum of:
    0.010435188 = product of:
      0.031305563 = sum of:
        0.031305563 = weight(_text_:m in 1304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031305563 = score(doc=1304,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11386436 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.27493733 = fieldWeight in 1304, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1304)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    m
  8. Sparck Jones, K.: Automatic classification (1976) 0.00 
    0.0031044704 = product of:
  0.006208941 = sum of:
    0.006208941 = product of:
      0.018626822 = sum of:
        0.018626822 = weight(_text_:a in 2908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018626822 = score(doc=2908,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.05276016 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.3530471 = fieldWeight in 2908, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2908)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Classification in the 1970s: a second look. Rev. ed. Ed.: A. Maltby
    Type
    a
  9. Sparck Jones, K.: ¬A statistical interpretation of term specifity and its application in retrieval (1972) 0.00 
    0.0025347895 = product of:
  0.005069579 = sum of:
    0.005069579 = product of:
      0.015208736 = sum of:
        0.015208736 = weight(_text_:a in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015208736 = score(doc=5187,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.05276016 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 5187, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5187)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  10. Sparck Jones, K.; Walker, S.; Robertson, S.E.: ¬A probabilistic model of information retrieval : development and comparative experiments - part 1 (2000) 0.00 
    0.001901092 = product of:
  0.003802184 = sum of:
    0.003802184 = product of:
      0.011406552 = sum of:
        0.011406552 = weight(_text_:a in 4181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011406552 = score(doc=4181,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.05276016 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 4181, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4181)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  11. Sparck Jones, K.; Walker, S.; Robertson, S.E.: ¬A probabilistic model of information retrieval : development and comparative experiments - part 2 (2000) 0.00 
    0.001901092 = product of:
  0.003802184 = sum of:
    0.003802184 = product of:
      0.011406552 = sum of:
        0.011406552 = weight(_text_:a in 4286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011406552 = score(doc=4286,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.05276016 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 4286, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4286)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  12. Sparck Jones, K.; Tait, J.I.: Automatic search term variant generation (1984) 0.00 
    0.0017923666 = product of:
  0.0035847332 = sum of:
    0.0035847332 = product of:
      0.0107542 = sum of:
        0.0107542 = weight(_text_:a in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0107542 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05276016 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  13. Sparck Jones, K.: ¬The role of artificial intelligence in information retrieval (1991) 0.00 
    0.0017923666 = product of:
  0.0035847332 = sum of:
    0.0035847332 = product of:
      0.0107542 = sum of:
        0.0107542 = weight(_text_:a in 4811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0107542 = score(doc=4811,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.05276016 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4811, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4811)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Presents a view of the scope of artificial intelligence (AI) in information retrieval (IR). Considers potential roles of AI and IR, evaluating AI from a realistic point od view and within a wide information management potential, not just because AI is itself insufficiently developed, but because many information management tasks are properly shallow information processing ones. There is nevertheless an important place for specific applications of AI or AI-derived technology when particular constraints can be placed on the information management tasks involved
    Type
    a
  14. Sparck Jones, K.; Jackson, D.M.: ¬The use of automatically obtained keyword classification for information retrieval (1970) 0.00 
    0.0017923666 = product of:
  0.0035847332 = sum of:
    0.0035847332 = product of:
      0.0107542 = sum of:
        0.0107542 = weight(_text_:a in 5177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0107542 = score(doc=5177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05276016 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 5177, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5177)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  15. Sparck Jones, K.: Index term weighting (1973) 0.00 
    0.0017923666 = product of:
  0.0035847332 = sum of:
    0.0035847332 = product of:
      0.0107542 = sum of:
        0.0107542 = weight(_text_:a in 5491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0107542 = score(doc=5491,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05276016 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 5491, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5491)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  16. Robertson, S.E.; Sparck Jones, K.: Relevance weighting of search terms (1976) 0.00 
    0.0017923666 = product of:
  0.0035847332 = sum of:
    0.0035847332 = product of:
      0.0107542 = sum of:
        0.0107542 = weight(_text_:a in 71) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0107542 = score(doc=71,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.05276016 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 71, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=71)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Examines statistical techniques for exploiting relevance information to weight search terms. These techniques are presented as a natural extension of weighting methods using information about the distribution of index terms in documents in general. A series of relevance weighting functions is derived and is justified by theoretical considerations. In particular, it is shown that specific weighted search methods are implied by a general probabilistic theory of retrieval. Different applications of relevance weighting are illustrated by experimental results for test collections
    Type
    a
  17. Sparck Jones, K.: Retrieval system tests 1958-1978 (1981) 0.00 
    0.0017923666 = product of:
  0.0035847332 = sum of:
    0.0035847332 = product of:
      0.0107542 = sum of:
        0.0107542 = weight(_text_:a in 3156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0107542 = score(doc=3156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05276016 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 3156, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3156)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  18. Sparck Jones, K.: ¬The Cranfield tests (1981) 0.00 
    0.0017923666 = product of:
  0.0035847332 = sum of:
    0.0035847332 = product of:
      0.0107542 = sum of:
        0.0107542 = weight(_text_:a in 3157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0107542 = score(doc=3157,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05276016 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 3157, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3157)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  19. Sparck Jones, K.: Some thoughts on classification for retrieval (1970) 0.00 
    0.0017712379 = product of:
  0.0035424759 = sum of:
    0.0035424759 = product of:
      0.010627427 = sum of:
        0.010627427 = weight(_text_:a in 4327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010627427 = score(doc=4327,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.05276016 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 4327, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4327)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The suggestion that classifications for retrieval should be constructed automatically raises some serious problems concerning the sorts of classification which are required, and the way in which formal classification theories should be exploited, given that a retrieval classification is required for a purpose. These difficulties have not been sufficiently considered, and the paper therefore attempts an analysis of them, though no solution of immediate application can be suggested. Starting with the illustrative proposition that a polythetic, multiple, unordered classification is required in automatic thesaurus construction, this is considered in the context of classification in general, where eight sorts of classification can be distinguished, each covering a range of class definitions and class-finding algorithms. The problem which follows is that since there is generally no natural or best classification of a set of objects as such, the evaluation of alternative classifications requires either formal criteria of goodness of fit, or, if a classification is required for a purpose, a precises statement of that purpose. In any case a substantive theory of classification is needed, which does not exist; and since sufficiently precise specifications of retrieval requirements are also lacking, the only currently available approach to automatic classification experiments for information retrieval is to do enough of them
    Type
    a
  20. Sparck Jones, K.: Some thoughts on classification for retrieval (2005) 0.00 
    0.0017712379 = product of:
  0.0035424759 = sum of:
    0.0035424759 = product of:
      0.010627427 = sum of:
        0.010627427 = weight(_text_:a in 4392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010627427 = score(doc=4392,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.05276016 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045757167 = queryNorm
            0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 4392, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4392)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper was originally published in 1970 (Journal of documentation. 26(1970), S.89-101), considered the suggestion that classifications for retrieval should be constructed automatically and raised some serious problems concerning the sorts of classification which were required, and the way in which formal classification theories should be exploited, given that a retrieval classification is required for a purpose. These difficulties had not been sufficiently considered, and the paper, therefore, aims to attempt an analysis of them, though no solutions of immediate application could be suggested. Design/methodology/approach - Starting with the illustrative proposition that a polythetic, multiple, unordered classification is required in automatic thesaurus construction, this is considered in the context of classification in general, where eight sorts of classification can be distinguished, each covering a range of class definitions and class-finding algorithms. Findings - Since there is generally no natural or best classification of a set of objects as such, the evaluation of alternative classifications requires either formal criteria of goodness of fit, or, if a classification is required for a purpose, a precise statement of that purpose. In any case a substantive theory of classification is needed, which does not exist; and, since sufficiently precise specifications of retrieval requirements are also lacking, the only currently available approach to automatic classification experiments for information retrieval is to do enough of them. Originality/value - Gives insights into the classification of material for information retrieval.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 34
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 30
  • m 4
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications