Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010274886 = product of:
  0.041099545 = sum of:
    0.041099545 = weight(_text_:digitale in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041099545 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18027179 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.158747 = idf(docFreq=690, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.22798656 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.158747 = idf(docFreq=690, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Mit der Anfang 2010 begonnen Implementierung und Ergebnisevaluierung des automatischen Indexierungsverfahrens "Decisiv Categorization" der Firma Recommind soll das hier skizzierte Informationsstrukturierungsproblem in zwei Schritten gelöst werden. Kurz- bis mittelfristig soll die intellektuelle Indexierung durch ein semiautomatisches Verfahren6 unterstützt werden. Mittel- bis langfristig soll das maschinelle Verfahren, aufbauend auf einem entsprechenden Training, in die Lage versetzt werden, sowohl im Hause vorliegende Dokumente vollautomatisch zu indexieren als auch ZBW-fremde digitale Informationsressourcen zu verschlagworten bzw. zu klassifizieren, um sie in einem gemeinsamen Suchraum auffindbar machen zu können. Im Anschluss an diese Einleitung werden die ersten Ansätze maschineller Sacherschließung an der ZBW (2001-2004) und deren Ergebnisse und Problemlagen aufgezeigt. Danach werden die Rahmenbedingungen (Projektauftrag und -ziel) für eine Wiederaufnahme des Vorhabens im Jahre 2009 aufgezeigt, gefolgt von einer Darstellung der Funktionsweise der Recommind-Technologie und deren Einsatz im Rahmen der Sacherschließung von Online-Dokumenten mit einem Thesaurus. Schwerpunkt dieser Abhandlung bilden im Anschluss daran die Evaluierungsmöglichkeiten automatischer Indexierungsansätze sowie die aktuellen Ergebnisse und zentralen Erkenntnisse des Einsatzes im Kontext der ZBW. Das Fazit beschreibt die entsprechenden Schlussfolgerungen aus den erzielten Ergebnissen sowie den Ausblick auf das weitere Vorgehen.

0.004121639 = product of:
  0.016486555 = sum of:
    0.016486555 = weight(_text_:information in 2322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016486555 = score(doc=2322,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 2322, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2322)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ausgehend von theoretischen Indexierungsansätzen wird das klassische Vektorraum-Modell für automatische Indexierung (mit dem Trennschärfen-Modell) erläutert. Das Clustering in Information-Retrieval-Systemem wird als eine natürliche logische Folge aus diesem Modell aufgefaßt und in allen seinen Ausprägungen (d.h. als Dokumenten-, Term- oder Dokumenten- und Termklassifikation) behandelt. Anschließend werden die Suchstrategien in vorklassifizierten Dokumentenbeständen (Clustersuche) detailliert beschrieben. Zum Schluß wird noch die sinnvolle Anwendung der Clusteranalyse in Information-Retrieval-Systemen kurz diskutiert

0.0029745363 = product of:
  0.011898145 = sum of:
    0.011898145 = weight(_text_:information in 2533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011898145 = score(doc=2533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2533)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

New review of information networking. 1996, no.2, S.15-40

0.0029745363 = product of:
  0.011898145 = sum of:
    0.011898145 = weight(_text_:information in 5769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011898145 = score(doc=5769,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 5769, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5769)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Statistical association measures have been widely applied in information retrieval research, usually employing a clustering of documents or terms on the basis of their relationships. Applications of the association measures for term clustering include automatic thesaurus construction and query expansion. This research evaluates the similarity of six association measures by comparing the relationship and behavior they demonstrate in various analyses of a test corpus. Analysis techniques include comparisons of highly ranked term pairs and term clusters, analyses of the correlation among the association measures using Pearson's correlation coefficient and MDS mapping, and an analysis of the impact of a term frequency on the association values by means of z-score. The major findings of the study are as follows: First, the most similar association measures are mutual information and Yule's coefficient of colligation Y, whereas cosine and Jaccard coefficients, as well as X**2 statistic and likelihood ratio, demonstrate quite similar behavior for terms with high frequency. Second, among all the measures, the X**2 statistic is the least affected by the frequency of terms. Third, although cosine and Jaccard coefficients tend to emphasize high frequency terms, mutual information and Yule's Y seem to overestimate rare terms

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.4, S.283-296

0.0029446408 = product of:
  0.011778563 = sum of:
    0.011778563 = weight(_text_:information in 7209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011778563 = score(doc=7209,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 7209, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7209)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Nordic WAIS/WWW project sponsored by NORDINFO is a joint project between Lund University Library and the National Technological Library of Denmark. It aims to improve the existing networked information discovery and retrieval tools Wide Area Information System (WAIS) and World Wide Web (WWW), and to move towards unifying WWW and WAIS. Details current results focusing on the WAIS side of the project. Describes research into automatic indexing and classification of WAIS sources, development of an orientation tool for WAIS, and development of a WAIS index of WWW resources

0.0025760243 = product of:
  0.010304097 = sum of:
    0.010304097 = weight(_text_:information in 3300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010304097 = score(doc=3300,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 3300, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3300)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Automatic document categorization is an important research problem in Information Science and Natural Language Processing. Many applications, including, Word Sense Disambiguation and Information Retrieval in large collections, can benefit from such categorization. This paper focuses on automatic categorization of documents from the biomedical literature into broad discipline-based categories. Two different systems are described and contrasted: CISMeF, which uses rules based on human indexing of the documents by the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) controlled vocabulary in order to assign metaterms (MTs), and Journal Descriptor Indexing (JDI), based on human categorization of about 4,000 journals and statistical associations between journal descriptors (JDs) and textwords in the documents. We evaluate and compare the performance of these systems against a gold standard of humanly assigned categories for 100 MEDLINE documents, using six measures selected from trec_eval. The results show that for five of the measures performance is comparable, and for one measure JDI is superior. We conclude that these results favor JDI, given the significantly greater intellectual overhead involved in human indexing and maintaining a rule base for mapping MeSH terms to MTs. We also note a JDI method that associates JDs with MeSH indexing rather than textwords, and it may be worthwhile to investigate whether this JDI method (statistical) and CISMeF (rule-based) might be combined and then evaluated showing they are complementary to one another.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.12, S.2530-2539

0.0025760243 = product of:
  0.010304097 = sum of:
    0.010304097 = weight(_text_:information in 3311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010304097 = score(doc=3311,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 3311, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3311)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Tools for automatic subject assignment help deal with scale and sustainability in creating and enriching metadata, establishing more connections across and between resources and enhancing consistency. Although some software vendors and experimental researchers claim the tools can replace manual subject indexing, hard scientific evidence of their performance in operating information environments is scarce. A major reason for this is that research is usually conducted in laboratory conditions, excluding the complexities of real-life systems and situations. The article reviews and discusses issues with existing evaluation approaches such as problems of aboutness and relevance assessments, implying the need to use more than a single "gold standard" method when evaluating indexing and retrieval, and proposes a comprehensive evaluation framework. The framework is informed by a systematic review of the literature on evaluation approaches: evaluating indexing quality directly through assessment by an evaluator or through comparison with a gold standard, evaluating the quality of computer-assisted indexing directly in the context of an indexing workflow, and evaluating indexing quality indirectly through analyzing retrieval performance.

Series

Advances in information science

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.1, S.3-16

0.0021033147 = product of:
  0.008413259 = sum of:
    0.008413259 = weight(_text_:information in 2161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008413259 = score(doc=2161,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2161, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2161)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.9, S.1799-1816

0.0016826519 = product of:
  0.0067306077 = sum of:
    0.0067306077 = weight(_text_:information in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067306077 = score(doc=2596,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Ramana Rao (Inxight, Palo Alto, CA) 7 ± 2 Insights on achieving Effective Information Access Session One: Updates and a twelve month perspective Danny Sullivan (Search Engine Watch, US / England) Portalization and other search trends Carol Tenopir (University of Tennessee) Search realities faced by end users and professional searchers Session Two: Today's search engines and beyond Daniel Hoogterp (Retrieval Technologies, McLean, VA) Effective presentation and utilization of search techniques Rick Kenny (Fulcrum Technologies, Ontario, Canada) Beyond document clustering: The knowledge impact statement Gary Stock (Ingenius, Kalamazoo, MI) Automated change monitoring Gary Culliss (Direct Hit, Wellesley Hills, MA) User popularity ranked search engines Byron Dom (IBM, CA) Automatically finding the best pages on the World Wide Web (CLEVER) Peter Tomassi (LookSmart, San Francisco, CA) Adding human intellect to search technology Session Three: Panel discussion: Human v automated categorization and editing Ev Brenner (New York, NY)- Chairman James Callan (University of Massachusetts, MA) Marc Krellenstein (Northern Light Technology, Cambridge, MA) Dan Miller (Ask Jeeves, Berkeley, CA) Session Four: Updates and a twelve month perspective Steve Arnold (AIT, Harrods Creek, KY) Review: The leading edge in search and retrieval software Ellen Voorhees (NIST, Gaithersburg, MD) TREC update Session Five: Search engines now and beyond Intelligent Agents John Snyder (Muscat, Cambridge, England) Practical issues behind intelligent agents Text summarization Therese Firmin, (Dept of Defense, Ft George G. Meade, MD) The TIPSTER/SUMMAC evaluation of automatic text summarization systems Cross language searching Elizabeth Liddy (TextWise, Syracuse, NY) A conceptual interlingua approach to cross-language retrieval. Video search and retrieval Armon Amir (IBM, Almaden, CA) CueVideo: Modular system for automatic indexing and browsing of video/audio Speech recognition Michael Witbrock (Lycos, Waltham, MA) Retrieval of spoken documents Visualization James A. Wise (Integral Visuals, Richland, WA) Information visualization in the new millennium: Emerging science or passing fashion? Text mining David Evans (Claritech, Pittsburgh, PA) Text mining - towards decision support

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=3627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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).