Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.013613109 = product of:
  0.027226217 = sum of:
    0.027226217 = product of:
      0.054452434 = sum of:
        0.054452434 = weight(_text_:systems in 5268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054452434 = score(doc=5268,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.339541 = fieldWeight in 5268, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5268)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Automatic subject indexing addresses problems of scale and sustainability and can be at the same time used to enrich existing metadata records, establish more connections across and between resources from various metadata and resource collec-tions, and enhance consistency of the metadata. In this work, au-tomatic subject indexing focuses on assigning index terms or classes from established knowledge organization systems (KOSs) for subject indexing like thesauri, subject headings systems and classification systems. The following major approaches are dis-cussed, in terms of their similarities and differences, advantages and disadvantages for automatic assigned indexing from KOSs: "text categorization," "document clustering," and "document classification." Text categorization is perhaps the most wide-spread, machine-learning approach with what seems generally good reported performance. Document clustering automatically both creates groups of related documents and extracts names of subjects depicting the group at hand. Document classification re-uses the intellectual effort invested into creating a KOS for sub-ject indexing and even simple string-matching algorithms have been reported to achieve good results, because one concept can be described using a number of different terms, including equiv-alent, related, narrower and broader terms. Finally, applicability of automatic subject indexing to operative information systems and challenges of evaluation are outlined, suggesting the need for more research.

0.013476291 = product of:
  0.026952581 = sum of:
    0.026952581 = product of:
      0.053905163 = sum of:
        0.053905163 = weight(_text_:systems in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053905163 = score(doc=718,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the face of the ever-increasing document volume, libraries around the globe are more and more exploring (semi-) automated approaches to subject indexing. This helps sustain bibliographic objectives, enrich metadata, and establish more connections across documents from various collections, effectively leading to improved information retrieval and access. However, generally accepted automated approaches that are functional in operative systems are lacking. This article aims to provide an overview of basic principles used for automated subject indexing, major approaches in relation to their possible application in actual library systems, existing working examples, as well as related challenges calling for further research.

0.0068065543 = product of:
  0.013613109 = sum of:
    0.013613109 = product of:
      0.027226217 = sum of:
        0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 3311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027226217 = score(doc=3311,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 3311, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3311)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.