Search (150 results, page 8 of 8)

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 3121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=3121,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3121, 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=3121)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.10, S.2464-2476

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).

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 5036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=5036,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5036, 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=5036)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 56(2019) no.1, S.167-191

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 5055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=5055,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5055, 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=5055)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 54(2018) no.4, S.593-608

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 744, 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=744)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.11, S.1513-1528

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=977,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 977, 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=977)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

DESIDOC journal of library and information technology. 43(2023) no.1, S.45-54

0.0011898145 = product of:
  0.004759258 = sum of:
    0.004759258 = weight(_text_:information in 2301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004759258 = score(doc=2301,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2301, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2301)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Analytico-synthetic and faceted classifications, such as Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) express content of documents with complex, pre-combined classification codes. Without classification authority control that would help manage and access structured notations, the use of UDC codes in searching and browsing is limited. Existing UDC parsing solutions are usually created for a particular database system or a specific task and are not widely applicable. The approach described in this paper provides a solution by which the analysis and interpretation of UDC notations would be stored into an intermediate format (in this case, in XML) by automatic means without any data or information loss. Due to its richness, the output file can be converted into different formats, such as standard mark-up and data exchange formats or simple lists of the recommended entry points of a UDC number. The program can also be used to create authority records containing complex UDC numbers which can be comprehensively analysed in order to be retrieved effectively. The Java program, as well as the corresponding schema definition it employs, is under continuous development. The current version of the interpreter software is now available online for testing purposes at the following web site: http://interpreter-eto.rhcloud.com. The future plan is to implement conversion methods for standard formats and to create standard online interfaces in order to make it possible to use the features of software as a service. This would result in the algorithm being able to be employed both in existing and future library systems to analyse UDC numbers without any significant programming effort.

0.0011898145 = product of:
  0.004759258 = sum of:
    0.004759258 = weight(_text_:information in 175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004759258 = score(doc=175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=175)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0010410878 = product of:
  0.004164351 = sum of:
    0.004164351 = weight(_text_:information in 3647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004164351 = score(doc=3647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.06788416 = fieldWeight in 3647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3647)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The selection in this reader by R. M. Needham and K. Sparck Jones reports an early approach to automatic classification that was taken in England. The following selection reviews various approaches that were being pursued in the United States at about the same time. It then discusses a particular approach initiated in the early 1960s by Harold Borko, at that time Head of the Language Processing and Retrieval Research Staff at the System Development Corporation, Santa Monica, California and, since 1966, a member of the faculty at the Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of California, Los Angeles. As was described earlier, there are two steps in automatic classification, the first being to identify pairs of terms that are similar by virtue of co-occurring as index terms in the same documents, and the second being to form equivalence classes of intersubstitutable terms. To compute similarities, Borko and his associates used a standard correlation formula; to derive classification categories, where Needham and Sparck Jones used clumping, the Borko team used the statistical technique of factor analysis. The fact that documents can be classified automatically, and in any number of ways, is worthy of passing notice. Worthy of serious attention would be a demonstra tion that a computer-based classification system was effective in the organization and retrieval of documents. One reason for the inclusion of the following selection in the reader is that it addresses the question of evaluation. To evaluate the effectiveness of their automatically derived classification, Borko and his team asked three questions. The first was Is the classification reliable? in other words, could the categories derived from one sample of texts be used to classify other texts? Reliability was assessed by a case-study comparison of the classes derived from three different samples of abstracts. The notso-surprising conclusion reached was that automatically derived classes were reliable only to the extent that the sample from which they were derived was representative of the total document collection. The second evaluation question asked whether the classification was reasonable, in the sense of adequately describing the content of the document collection. The answer was sought by comparing the automatically derived categories with categories in a related classification system that was manually constructed. Here the conclusion was that the automatic method yielded categories that fairly accurately reflected the major area of interest in the sample collection of texts; however, since there were only eleven such categories and they were quite broad, they could not be regarded as suitable for use in a university or any large general library. The third evaluation question asked whether automatic classification was accurate, in the sense of producing results similar to those obtainabie by human cIassifiers. When using human classification as a criterion, automatic classification was found to be 50 percent accurate.

7.4363407E-4 = product of:
  0.0029745363 = sum of:
    0.0029745363 = weight(_text_:information in 38) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0029745363 = score(doc=38,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.048488684 = fieldWeight in 38, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=38)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Die am Anfang des Werkes gestellte Frage, ob »die Techniken des automatischen Klassifizierens heute bereits so weit [sind], dass damit grosse Mengen elektronischer Dokumente [-] zufrieden stellend erschlossen werden können? « (S. 13), beantwortet der Verfasser mit einem eindeutigen »nein«, was Salton und McGills Aussage von 1983, »daß einfache automatische Indexierungsverfahren schnell und kostengünstig arbeiten, und daß sie Recall- und Precisionwerte erreichen, die mindestens genauso gut sind wie bei der manuellen Indexierung mit kontrolliertem Vokabular « (Gerard Salton und Michael J. McGill: Information Retrieval. Hamburg u.a. 1987, S. 64 f.) kräftig relativiert. Über die Gründe, warum drei der großen Projekte nicht weiter verfolgt werden, will Oberhauser nicht spekulieren, nennt aber mangelnden Erfolg, Verlagerung der Arbeit in den beteiligten Institutionen sowie Finanzierungsprobleme als mögliche Ursachen. Das größte Entwicklungspotenzial beim automatischen Erschließen großer Dokumentenmengen sieht der Verfasser heute in den Bereichen der Patentund Mediendokumentation. Hier solle man im bibliothekarischen Bereich die Entwicklung genau verfolgen, da diese »sicherlich mittelfristig auf eine qualitativ zufrieden stellende Vollautomatisierung« abziele (S. 146). Oberhausers Darstellung ist ein rundum gelungenes Werk, das zum Handapparat eines jeden, der sich für automatische Erschließung interessiert, gehört."