Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Automatisches Klassifizieren"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Fagni, T.; Sebastiani, F.: Selecting negative examples for hierarchical text classification: An experimental comparison (2010) 0.03
    0.034979578 = product of:
      0.069959156 = sum of:
        0.069959156 = product of:
          0.13991831 = sum of:
            0.13991831 = weight(_text_:policy in 4101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.13991831 = score(doc=4101,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05086421 = queryNorm
                0.5130373 = fieldWeight in 4101, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4101)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Hierarchical text classification (HTC) approaches have recently attracted a lot of interest on the part of researchers in human language technology and machine learning, since they have been shown to bring about equal, if not better, classification accuracy with respect to their "flat" counterparts while allowing exponential time savings at both learning and classification time. A typical component of HTC methods is a "local" policy for selecting negative examples: Given a category c, its negative training examples are by default identified with the training examples that are negative for c and positive for the categories which are siblings of c in the hierarchy. However, this policy has always been taken for granted and never been subjected to careful scrutiny since first proposed 15 years ago. This article proposes a thorough experimental comparison between this policy and three other policies for the selection of negative examples in HTC contexts, one of which (BEST LOCAL (k)) is being proposed for the first time in this article. We compare these policies on the hierarchical versions of three supervised learning algorithms (boosting, support vector machines, and naïve Bayes) by performing experiments on two standard TC datasets, REUTERS-21578 and RCV1-V2.
  2. HaCohen-Kerner, Y. et al.: Classification using various machine learning methods and combinations of key-phrases and visual features (2016) 0.02
    0.017228495 = product of:
      0.03445699 = sum of:
        0.03445699 = product of:
          0.06891398 = sum of:
            0.06891398 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06891398 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05086421 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    1. 2.2016 18:25:22
  3. Zhu, W.Z.; Allen, R.B.: Document clustering using the LSI subspace signature model (2013) 0.01
    0.010337097 = product of:
      0.020674193 = sum of:
        0.020674193 = product of:
          0.041348387 = sum of:
            0.041348387 = weight(_text_:22 in 690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.041348387 = score(doc=690,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05086421 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 690, 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=690)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    23. 3.2013 13:22:36
  4. Egbert, J.; Biber, D.; Davies, M.: Developing a bottom-up, user-based method of web register classification (2015) 0.01
    0.010337097 = product of:
      0.020674193 = sum of:
        0.020674193 = product of:
          0.041348387 = sum of:
            0.041348387 = weight(_text_:22 in 2158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.041348387 = score(doc=2158,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05086421 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2158, 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=2158)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    4. 8.2015 19:22:04
  5. Liu, R.-L.: ¬A passage extractor for classification of disease aspect information (2013) 0.01
    0.008614248 = product of:
      0.017228495 = sum of:
        0.017228495 = product of:
          0.03445699 = sum of:
            0.03445699 = weight(_text_:22 in 1107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03445699 = score(doc=1107,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05086421 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1107, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1107)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    28.10.2013 19:22:57