Search (58 results, page 1 of 3)

0.028787265 = product of:
  0.05757453 = sum of:
    0.05757453 = sum of:
      0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007654148 = score(doc=4721,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 4721, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4721)
      0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04992038 = score(doc=4721,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4721, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4721)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 1.2019 19:04:22

Type

a

0.024208048 = product of:
  0.048416097 = sum of:
    0.048416097 = sum of:
      0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0047357627 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
      0.043680333 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043680333 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

Type

a

0.020749755 = product of:
  0.04149951 = sum of:
    0.04149951 = sum of:
      0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0040592253 = score(doc=3197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3197, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3197)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=3197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3197, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3197)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Indexing consists of both novel and more traditional techniques. Cutting-edge indexing techniques, such as automatic indexing, ontologies, and topic maps, were developed independently of older techniques such as thesauri, but it is now recognized that these older methods also hold expertise. Indexing describes various traditional and novel indexing techniques, giving information professionals and students of library and information sciences a broad and comprehensible introduction to indexing. This title consists of twelve chapters: an Introduction to subject readings and theasauri; Automatic indexing versus manual indexing; Techniques applied in automatic indexing of text material; Automatic indexing of images; The black art of indexing moving images; Automatic indexing of music; Taxonomies and ontologies; Metadata formats and indexing; Tagging; Topic maps; Indexing the web; and The Semantic Web.

Date

24. 8.2016 14:03:22

0.00334869 = product of:
  0.00669738 = sum of:
    0.00669738 = product of:
      0.01339476 = sum of:
        0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 2091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01339476 = score(doc=2091,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 2091, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

During the BMWI granted project "Print-IT", the need of a thesaurus based uniform and consistent language for the German printing industry became evident. In this paper we introduce a semi-automatic construction approach for such a thesaurus and present a workflow which supports users to generate thesaurus typical information structures from relevant digitalized resources with the help of common IT-tools.

Type

a

0.0030491136 = product of:
  0.006098227 = sum of:
    0.006098227 = product of:
      0.012196454 = sum of:
        0.012196454 = weight(_text_:a in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012196454 = score(doc=2915,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22966442 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The introduction (1.0) of this article considers the status of the thesaurus within LIS and asks about the future prospect for thesauri. The main following points are: (2.0) Any knowledge organization system (KOS) is today threatened by Google-like systems, and it is therefore important to consider if there still is a need for knowledge organization (KO) in the traditional sense. (3.0) A thesaurus is a somewhat reduced form of KOS compared to, for example, an ontology, and its "bundling" and restricted number of semantic relations has never been justified theoretically or empirically. Which semantic relations are most fruitful for a given task is thus an open question, and different domains may need different kinds of KOS including different sets of relations between terms. (4.0) A KOS is a controlled vocabulary (CV) and should not be considered a "perfect language" (Eco 1995) that is simply able to remove the ambiguity of natural language; rather much ambiguity in language represents a battle between many "voices" (Bakhtin 1981) or "paradigms" (Kuhn 1962). In this perspective, a specific KOS, e.g. a specific thesaurus, is just one "voice" among many voices, and that voice has to demonstrate its authority and utility. It is concluded (5.0) that the traditional thesaurus does not have a place in modern information retrieval, but that more flexible semantic tools based on proper studies of domains will always be important.

Type

a

0.0030255679 = product of:
  0.0060511357 = sum of:
    0.0060511357 = product of:
      0.012102271 = sum of:
        0.012102271 = weight(_text_:a in 4743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012102271 = score(doc=4743,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 4743, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4743)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper, we describe in detail the Information Content Evaluation Map (ICE-Map Visualization, formerly referred to as IC Difference Analysis). The ICE-Map Visualization is a visual data mining approach for all kinds of concept hierarchies that uses statistics about the concept usage to help a user in the evaluation and maintenance of the hierarchy. It consists of a statistical framework that employs the the notion of information content from information theory, as well as a visualization of the hierarchy and the result of the statistical analysis by means of a treemap.

0.0028047764 = product of:
  0.005609553 = sum of:
    0.005609553 = product of:
      0.011219106 = sum of:
        0.011219106 = weight(_text_:a in 2036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011219106 = score(doc=2036,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 2036, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2036)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Thesauri and other types of controlled vocabularies are increasingly re-engineered into ontologies described using the Web Ontology Language (OWL), particularly in the life sciences. This has led to the perception by some that thesauri are ontologies once they are described by using the syntax of OWL while others have emphasized the need to re-engineer a vocabulary to use it as ontology. This confusion is rooted in different perceptions of what ontologies are and how they differ from other types of vocabularies. In this article, we rigorously examine the structural differences and similarities between thesauri and meaning-defining ontologies described in OWL. Specifically, we conduct (a) a conceptual comparison of thesauri and ontologies, and (b) a comparison of a specific thesaurus and a specific ontology in the same subject field. Our results show that thesauri and ontologies need to be treated as 2 orthogonal kinds of models with superficially similar structures. An ontology is not a good thesaurus, nor is a thesaurus a good ontology. A thesaurus requires significant structural and other content changes to become an ontology, and vice versa.

Type

a

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=4695,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4695, 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=4695)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei

Type

a

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 4958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=4958,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4958, 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=4958)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei

Type

a

0.0026849252 = product of:
  0.0053698504 = sum of:
    0.0053698504 = product of:
      0.010739701 = sum of:
        0.010739701 = weight(_text_:a in 2015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010739701 = score(doc=2015,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 2015, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2015)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A video game's plot is one of its defining features, and prior research confirms the importance of plot metadata to users through persona analysis, interviews, and surveys. However, existing organizational systems, including library catalogs, game-related websites, and traditional plot classification systems, do not adequately describe the plot information of video games, in other words, what the game is really about. We attempt to address the issue by creating a controlled vocabulary based on a domain analysis involving a review of relevant literature and existing data structures. The controlled vocabulary is constructed in a pair structure for maximizing flexibility and extensibility. Adopting this controlled vocabulary for describing plot information of games will allow for useful search and collocation of video games.

Type

a

0.0025370158 = product of:
  0.0050740317 = sum of:
    0.0050740317 = product of:
      0.010148063 = sum of:
        0.010148063 = weight(_text_:a in 2105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010148063 = score(doc=2105,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 2105, 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=2105)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Once upon a time, the thesaurus was venerated. It marked a breakthrough in the retrieval of very specific needles of information hidden in large haystacks. Some of the veneration rubbed off on to the trained information professionals, who alone mastered the occult art of using it to concoct effective search strategies. All this was in the time before we had a computer on every desk, when a collection of 10,000 articles was considered large, and long before the Google era. But now, who has the patience to consult a complicated thesaurus? Only a dedicated few. Has the thesaurus passed its sell-by date? And even its use-by date? These questions, and more, were tossed around at the Great Debate by a community of enthusiasts. While some limitations of the old-fashioned (?) thesaurus were noted, it still received a happy vote of confidence at the end. - Judi Vernau (2015) First speaker for the proposition - Vanda Broughton (2015) First speaker for the opposition - Helen Lippell (2015) Second speaker for the proposition - Leonard Will (2015) Second speaker for the opposition - Cross-examination of expert witnesses - Martin White (2015) Questions and discussion from the floor

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=862,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

International standard ISO 25964-1:2011 - Thesauri for information retrieval, includes a detailed data model for thesaurus structure. It is intended to provide a rigorous presentation of the elements and relationships which will not only clarify and standardise the varying and conflicting interpretations which exist but which can also be implemented consistently in automated systems. It makes a clear distinction between concepts and the terms which are used to label them, and includes other features that may be present in a thesaurus, such as compound equivalence, arrays and node labels, concept groups, notes and version history.

Source

Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=1376,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 1376, 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=1376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Thesauri are the most important tools for information and knowledge organization, and they undergo regular improvements according to the rapid development of new requirements and affordances of emerging information techniques. This paper attempts to integrate ontology into the conceptual organization scheme of thesauri and proposes a new solution to extend the functionality of thesauri based on ontological features, which is termed here as an onto-thesaurus. In this study, a prototype system named the Chinese Information Science and Information Service onto-thesaurus system (CIS&IS), was developed to analyze ontothesaurus with the category of information science and information service in the Chinese Topic Classification Dictionary with a two-stage approach. The first stage aims to define and construct the onto-thesaurus. The second stage aims to realize the evolution function of onto-thesaurus. The main purpose of this system was to achieve the function of self-learning and auto-evolution and to enable a much more effective conceptual retrieval by the newly proposed onto-thesaurus.

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 3485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=3485,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 3485, 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=3485)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Thesauri are knowledge models commonly used for information classication and retrieval whose structure is dened by standards that describe the main features the concepts and relations must have. However, following these standards requires a deep knowledge of the field the thesaurus is going to cover and experience in their creation. To help in this task, this paper describes a software processing chain that provides dierent validation components that evaluates the quality of the main thesaurus features.

Source

Semantic keyword-based search on structured data sources: COST Action IC1302. Second International KEYSTONE Conference, IKC 2016, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, September 8-9, 2016, Revised Selected Papers. Eds.: A. Calì, A. et al

Type

a

0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=3087,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3087, 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=3087)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A thesaurus contains a set of terms or features that may be used to represent recorded information, including prose documents or scientific data sets. The focus of this work is on the basic structural nature of a thesaurus itself, not on how people develop a thesaurus or how a thesaurus effects retrieval performance. Thesauri in this research are automatically developed in a simulation from sets of randomly or exhaustively generated documents. Each thesaurus is generated by the Thesaurus Generator software from a set of several hundred documents, and thousands of different document sets are used as input to the Thesaurus Generator, producing thousands of thesauri. Thus, thousands of thesauri are generated for each data point in accompanying graphs. The characteristics of this large number of thesauri are studied so that the relationships between thesaurus parameters can be determined. Some rules governing these relationships are suggested, addressing factors such as tree height and width, number of tree roots in thesauri, and number of terms available for the vocabulary. How these parameters scale as vocabularies grow is addressed. These results apply to various information systems that contain features with hierarchical relationships, including many thesauri and ontologies.

Type

a

0.0023435948 = product of:
  0.0046871896 = sum of:
    0.0046871896 = product of:
      0.009374379 = sum of:
        0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 4903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009374379 = score(doc=4903,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 4903, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4903)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 4562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=4562,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 4562, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article describes the process of constructing a thesaurus based on original historical documents located in the Archivo del Reino de Valencia, one of the most important historical archives in Spain. After examining precedents, we discuss the methodology used and its application. The aim of the project was to provide visibility to information contained in these historical documents which would otherwise have remained inaccessible and to do so in the clearest, most rigorous, and most useful way possible for both the specialized user and the general public. The use of information technology as a management tool is not as common in archives, especially historical archives, as in other documentation areas such as libraries. A pilot project was therefore set up to create an intranet support for managing four specific historical archives containing documents dating from the 13th to the 20th centuries. The most important part of this project was that of exploring the viability of constructing a thesaurus to become part of the automated program for archive description and checking.

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=2033,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Much of the literature of information science and knowledge organization has accepted and built upon Elaine Svenonius's (2004) claim that "paradigmatic relationships are those that are context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds" (p. 583). At the same time, the literature demonstrates a common understanding that paradigmatic relations are the kinds of semantic relations used in thesauri and other knowledge organization systems (including equivalence relations, hierarchical relations, and associative relations). This understanding is problematic and harmful because it directs attention away from the empirical and contextual basis for knowledge-organizing systems. Whether A is a kind of X is certainly not context-free and definitional in empirical sciences or in much everyday information. Semantic relations are theory-dependent and, in biology, for example, a scientific revolution has taken place in which many relations have changed following the new taxonomic paradigm named "cladism." This biological example is not an exception, but the norm. Semantic relations including paradigmatic relations are not a priori but are dependent on subject knowledge, scientific findings, and paradigms. As long as information scientists and knowledge organizers isolate themselves from subject knowledge, knowledge organization cannot possibly progress.

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 2106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=2106,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2106, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The use of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOSs) in aggregated metadata collections facilitates the implementation of search mechanisms operating on the same term or keyphrase space, thus preparing the ground for improved browsing, more accurate retrieval and better user profiling. Automatic thesaurus-based keyphrase extraction appears to be an inexpensive tool to obtain this information, but the studies on its effectiveness are scattered and do not consider the practical applicability of these techniques compared to the quality obtained by involving human experts. This paper presents an evaluation of keyphrase extraction using the KEA software and the AGROVOC vocabulary on a sample of a large collection of metadata in the field of agriculture from the AGRIS database. This effort includes a double evaluation, the classical automatic evaluation based on precision and recall measures, plus a blind evaluation aimed to contrast the quality of the keyphrases extracted against expert-provided samples and against the keyphrases originally recorded in the metadata. Results show not only that KEA outperforms humans in matching the original keyphrases, but also that the quality of the keyphrases extracted was similar to those provided by humans.

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 2703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=2703,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2703, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2703)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

When consumers search for health information, a major obstacle is their unfamiliarity with the medical terminology. Even though medical thesauri such as the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and related tools (e.g., the MeSH Browser) were created to help consumers find medical term definitions, the lack of direct and explicit integration of these help tools into a health retrieval system prevented them from effectively achieving their objectives. To explore this issue, we conducted an empirical study with two systems: One is a simple interface system supporting query-based searching; the other is an augmented system with two new components supporting MeSH term searching and MeSH tree browsing. A total of 45 subjects were recruited to participate in the study. The results indicated that the augmented system is more effective than the simple system in terms of improving user-perceived topic familiarity and question-answer performance, even though we did not find users spend more time on the augmented system. The two new MeSH help components played a critical role in participants' health information retrieval and were found to allow them to develop new search strategies. The findings of the study enhanced our understanding of consumers' search behaviors and shed light on the design of future health information retrieval systems.

Type

a