Search (26 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0060789483 = product of:
  0.024315793 = sum of:
    0.014758972 = weight(_text_:of in 2210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014758972 = score(doc=2210,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 2210, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2210)
    0.00955682 = product of:
      0.01911364 = sum of:
        0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 2210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01911364 = score(doc=2210,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 2210, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Sentiment analysis mainly focuses on the study of one's opinions that express positive or negative sentiments. With the explosive growth of web documents, sentiment analysis is becoming a hot topic in both academic research and system design. Fine-grained sentiment analysis is traditionally solved as a 2-step strategy, which results in cascade errors. Although joint models, such as joint sentiment/topic and maximum entropy (MaxEnt)/latent Dirichlet allocation, are proposed to tackle this problem of sentiment analysis, they focus on the joint learning of both aspects and sentiments. Thus, they are not appropriate to solve the cascade errors for sentiment analysis at the sentence or subsentence level. In this article, we present a novel jointly fine-grained sentiment analysis framework at the subsentence level with Markov logic. First, we divide the task into 2 separate stages (subjectivity classification and polarity classification). Then, the 2 separate stages are processed, respectively, with different feature sets, which are implemented by local formulas in Markov logic. Finally, global formulas in Markov logic are adopted to realize the interactions of the 2 separate stages. The joint inference of subjectivity and polarity helps prevent cascade errors. Experiments on a Chinese sentiment data set manifest that our joint model brings significant improvements.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.9, S.1913-1922

0.0057545356 = product of:
  0.023018142 = sum of:
    0.016396983 = weight(_text_:of in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016396983 = score(doc=1202,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
    0.006621159 = product of:
      0.013242318 = sum of:
        0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013242318 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Collaboration across disciplines is a critical form of scientific collaboration to solve complex problems and make innovative contributions. This study focuses on the association between multidisciplinary collaboration measured by coauthorship in publications and the disruption of publications measured by the Disruption (D) index. We used authors' affiliations as a proxy of the disciplines to which they belong and categorized an article into multidisciplinary collaboration or monodisciplinary collaboration. The D index quantifies the extent to which a study disrupts its predecessors. We selected 13 journals that publish articles in six disciplines from the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) database and then constructed regression models with fixed effects and estimated the relationship between the variables. The findings show that articles with monodisciplinary collaboration are more disruptive than those with multidisciplinary collaboration. Furthermore, we uncovered the mechanism of how monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration by exploring the references of the sampled publications.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 75(2023) no.1, S.59-78

0.0032407388 = product of:
  0.02592591 = sum of:
    0.02592591 = weight(_text_:of in 74) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02592591 = score(doc=74,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.4014868 = fieldWeight in 74, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=74)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Digital libraries have become one of the most important Web services for information seeking. One of their main drawbacks is their global approach: In general, there is just one interface for all users. One of the key elements in improving user satisfaction in digital libraries is personalization. When considering personalizing factors, cognitive styles have been proved to be one of the relevant parameters that affect information seeking. This justifies the introduction of cognitive style as one of the parameters of a Web personalized service. Nevertheless, this approach has one major drawback: Each user has to run a time-consuming test that determines his or her cognitive style. In this article, we present a study of how different classification systems can be used to automatically identify the cognitive style of a user using the set of interactions with a digital library. These classification systems can be used to automatically personalize, from a cognitive-style point of view, the interaction of the digital library and each of its users.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.2, S.237-251

0.0028986046 = product of:
  0.023188837 = sum of:
    0.023188837 = weight(_text_:of in 4655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023188837 = score(doc=4655,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4655, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4655)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Journal of information science. 30(2005) no.6, S.550-

0.0020918874 = product of:
  0.0167351 = sum of:
    0.0167351 = weight(_text_:of in 3961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0167351 = score(doc=3961,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 3961, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3961)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - Cognitive style has been identified to be significantly influential in deciding users' preferences of search engines. In particular, Witkin's field dependence/independence has been widely studied in the area of web searching. It has been suggested that this cognitive style has conceptual links with the holism/serialism. This study aims to investigate the differences between the field dependence/independence and holism/serialism. Design/methodology/approach - An empirical study was conducted with 120 students from a UK university. Riding's cognitive style analysis (CSA) and Ford's study preference questionnaire (SPQ) were used to identify the students' cognitive styles. A questionnaire was designed to identify users' preferences for the design of search engines. Data mining techniques were applied to analyse the data obtained from the empirical study. Findings - The results highlight three findings. First, a fundamental link is confirmed between the two cognitive styles. Second, the relationship between field dependent users and holists is suggested to be more prominent than that of field independent users and serialists. Third, the interface design preferences of field dependent and field independent users can be split more clearly than those of holists and serialists. Originality/value - The contributions of this study include a deeper understanding of the similarities and differences between field dependence/independence and holists/serialists as well as proposing a novel methodology for data analyses.

Source

Journal of documentation. 66(2010) no.4, S.585-603

0.0019524286 = product of:
  0.015619429 = sum of:
    0.015619429 = weight(_text_:of in 3386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015619429 = score(doc=3386,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 3386, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3386)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper reports a controlled study with statistical significance tests an five text categorization methods: the Support Vector Machines (SVM), a k-Nearest Neighbor (kNN) classifier, a neural network (NNet) approach, the Linear Leastsquares Fit (LLSF) mapping and a Naive Bayes (NB) classifier. We focus an the robustness of these methods in dealing with a skewed category distribution, and their performance as function of the training-set category frequency. Our results show that SVM, kNN and LLSF significantly outperform NNet and NB when the number of positive training instances per category are small (less than ten, and that all the methods perform comparably when the categories are sufficiently common (over 300 instances).