Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × theme_ss:"Automatisches Klassifizieren"
  1. HaCohen-Kerner, Y. et al.: Classification using various machine learning methods and combinations of key-phrases and visual features (2016) 0.02
    0.01767555 = product of:
      0.0353511 = sum of:
        0.0353511 = product of:
          0.0707022 = sum of:
            0.0707022 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0707022 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = 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
  2. Zhu, W.Z.; Allen, R.B.: Document clustering using the LSI subspace signature model (2013) 0.01
    0.010605331 = product of:
      0.021210661 = sum of:
        0.021210661 = product of:
          0.042421322 = sum of:
            0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042421322 = score(doc=690,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = 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
  3. Egbert, J.; Biber, D.; Davies, M.: Developing a bottom-up, user-based method of web register classification (2015) 0.01
    0.010605331 = product of:
      0.021210661 = sum of:
        0.021210661 = product of:
          0.042421322 = sum of:
            0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 2158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042421322 = score(doc=2158,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = 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
  4. Liu, R.-L.: ¬A passage extractor for classification of disease aspect information (2013) 0.01
    0.008837775 = product of:
      0.01767555 = sum of:
        0.01767555 = product of:
          0.0353511 = sum of:
            0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 1107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0353511 = score(doc=1107,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = 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
  5. Piros, A.: Automatic interpretation of complex UDC numbers : towards support for library systems (2015) 0.01
    0.007700737 = product of:
      0.015401474 = sum of:
        0.015401474 = product of:
          0.030802948 = sum of:
            0.030802948 = weight(_text_:systems in 2301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030802948 = score(doc=2301,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.19207339 = fieldWeight in 2301, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2301)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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.
  6. AlQenaei, Z.M.; Monarchi, D.E.: ¬The use of learning techniques to analyze the results of a manual classification system (2016) 0.01
    0.0068065543 = product of:
      0.013613109 = sum of:
        0.013613109 = product of:
          0.027226217 = sum of:
            0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 2836) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.027226217 = score(doc=2836,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 2836, 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=2836)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Classification is the process of assigning objects to pre-defined classes based on observations or characteristics of those objects, and there are many approaches to performing this task. The overall objective of this study is to demonstrate the use of two learning techniques to analyze the results of a manual classification system. Our sample consisted of 1,026 documents, from the ACM Computing Classification System, classified by their authors as belonging to one of the groups of the classification system: "H.3 Information Storage and Retrieval." A singular value decomposition of the documents' weighted term-frequency matrix was used to represent each document in a 50-dimensional vector space. The analysis of the representation using both supervised (decision tree) and unsupervised (clustering) techniques suggests that two pairs of the ACM classes are closely related to each other in the vector space. Class 1 (Content Analysis and Indexing) is closely related to Class 3 (Information Search and Retrieval), and Class 4 (Systems and Software) is closely related to Class 5 (Online Information Services). Further analysis was performed to test the diffusion of the words in the two classes using both cosine and Euclidean distance.
  7. Golub, K.; Soergel, D.; Buchanan, G.; Tudhope, D.; Lykke, M.; Hiom, D.: ¬A framework for evaluating automatic indexing or classification in the context of retrieval (2016) 0.01
    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.