Search (156 results, page 1 of 8)

0.2412465 = product of:
  0.321662 = sum of:
    0.075580016 = product of:
      0.22674005 = sum of:
        0.22674005 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22674005 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4034391 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.22674005 = weight(_text_:2f in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22674005 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4034391 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.019341951 = product of:
      0.038683902 = sum of:
        0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038683902 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.

Date

8. 1.2013 10:22:32

0.044560187 = product of:
  0.08912037 = sum of:
    0.011341691 = weight(_text_:information in 5273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011341691 = score(doc=5273,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5273, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5273)
    0.07777868 = sum of:
      0.032647457 = weight(_text_:technology in 5273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032647457 = score(doc=5273,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 5273, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5273)
      0.04513122 = weight(_text_:22 in 5273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04513122 = score(doc=5273,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5273, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5273)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 7.2006 16:24:52

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.3, S.431-442

0.04175274 = product of:
  0.08350548 = sum of:
    0.016838044 = weight(_text_:information in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016838044 = score(doc=2760,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
    0.06666744 = sum of:
      0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027983533 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
      0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038683902 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2760, 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=2760)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Information is often organized as a text hierarchy. A hierarchical text-classification system is thus essential for the management, sharing, and dissemination of information. It aims to automatically classify each incoming document into zero, one, or several categories in the text hierarchy. In this paper, we present a technique called CRHTC (context recognition for hierarchical text classification) that performs hierarchical text classification by recognizing the context of discussion (COD) of each category. A category's COD is governed by its ancestor categories, whose contents indicate contextual backgrounds of the category. A document may be classified into a category only if its content matches the category's COD. CRHTC does not require any trials to manually set parameters, and hence is more portable and easier to implement than other methods. It is empirically evaluated under various conditions. The results show that CRHTC achieves both better and more stable performance than several hierarchical and nonhierarchical text-classification methodologies.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:11:54

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.803-813

0.03849499 = product of:
  0.07698998 = sum of:
    0.02143378 = weight(_text_:information in 1107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02143378 = score(doc=1107,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.256578 = fieldWeight in 1107, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1107)
    0.055556197 = sum of:
      0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 1107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02331961 = score(doc=1107,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 1107, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1107)
      0.032236587 = weight(_text_:22 in 1107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032236587 = score(doc=1107,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = 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(2/4)

Abstract

Retrieval of disease information is often based on several key aspects such as etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and symptoms of diseases. Automatic identification of disease aspect information is thus essential. In this article, I model the aspect identification problem as a text classification (TC) problem in which a disease aspect corresponds to a category. The disease aspect classification problem poses two challenges to classifiers: (a) a medical text often contains information about multiple aspects of a disease and hence produces noise for the classifiers and (b) text classifiers often cannot extract the textual parts (i.e., passages) about the categories of interest. I thus develop a technique, PETC (Passage Extractor for Text Classification), that extracts passages (from medical texts) for the underlying text classifiers to classify. Case studies on thousands of Chinese and English medical texts show that PETC enhances a support vector machine (SVM) classifier in classifying disease aspect information. PETC also performs better than three state-of-the-art classifier enhancement techniques, including two passage extraction techniques for text classifiers and a technique that employs term proximity information to enhance text classifiers. The contribution is of significance to evidence-based medicine, health education, and healthcare decision support. PETC can be used in those application domains in which a text to be classified may have several parts about different categories.

Date

28.10.2013 19:22:57

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.11, S.2265-2277

0.038194444 = product of:
  0.07638889 = sum of:
    0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00972145 = score(doc=690,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 690, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=690)
    0.06666744 = sum of:
      0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027983533 = score(doc=690,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 690, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=690)
      0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038683902 = score(doc=690,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = 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(2/4)

Date

23. 3.2013 13:22:36

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.844-860

0.038194444 = product of:
  0.07638889 = sum of:
    0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 2158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00972145 = score(doc=2158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2158, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2158)
    0.06666744 = sum of:
      0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 2158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027983533 = score(doc=2158,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2158, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2158)
      0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 2158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038683902 = score(doc=2158,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = 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(2/4)

Date

4. 8.2015 19:22:04

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.9, S.1817-1831

0.035879306 = product of:
  0.07175861 = sum of:
    0.016202414 = weight(_text_:information in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016202414 = score(doc=2765,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2765, 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=2765)
    0.055556197 = sum of:
      0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02331961 = score(doc=2765,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
      0.032236587 = weight(_text_:22 in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032236587 = score(doc=2765,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2765, 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=2765)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Passages can be hidden within a text to circumvent their disallowed transfer. Such release of compartmentalized information is of concern to all corporate and governmental organizations. Passage retrieval is well studied; we posit, however, that passage detection is not. Passage retrieval is the determination of the degree of relevance of blocks of text, namely passages, comprising a document. Rather than determining the relevance of a document in its entirety, passage retrieval determines the relevance of the individual passages. As such, modified traditional information-retrieval techniques compare terms found in user queries with the individual passages to determine a similarity score for passages of interest. In passage detection, passages are classified into predetermined categories. More often than not, passage detection techniques are deployed to detect hidden paragraphs in documents. That is, to hide information, documents are injected with hidden text into passages. Rather than matching query terms against passages to determine their relevance, using text-mining techniques, the passages are classified. Those documents with hidden passages are defined as infected. Thus, simply stated, passage retrieval is the search for passages relevant to a user query, while passage detection is the classification of passages. That is, in passage detection, passages are labeled with one or more categories from a set of predetermined categories. We present a keyword-based dynamic passage approach (KDP) and demonstrate that KDP outperforms statistically significantly (99% confidence) the other document-splitting approaches by 12% to 18% in the passage detection and passage category-prediction tasks. Furthermore, we evaluate the effects of the feature selection, passage length, ambiguous passages, and finally training-data category distribution on passage-detection accuracy.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:14:43

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.814-825

0.024219502 = product of:
  0.048439004 = sum of:
    0.016202414 = weight(_text_:information in 611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016202414 = score(doc=611,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 611, 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=611)
    0.032236587 = product of:
      0.064473175 = sum of:
        0.064473175 = weight(_text_:22 in 611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064473175 = score(doc=611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 611, 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=611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Präsentation zum Vortrag anlässlich des 98. Deutscher Bibliothekartag in Erfurt: Ein neuer Blick auf Bibliotheken; TK10: Information erschließen und recherchieren Inhalte erschließen - mit neuen Tools

Date

22. 8.2009 12:54:24

0.021104999 = product of:
  0.042209998 = sum of:
    0.019644385 = weight(_text_:information in 2338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019644385 = score(doc=2338,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 2338, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2338)
    0.02256561 = product of:
      0.04513122 = sum of:
        0.04513122 = weight(_text_:22 in 2338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04513122 = score(doc=2338,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2338, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2338)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Imprint

Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science

Source

Visualizing subject access for 21st century information resources: Papers presented at the 1997 Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, 2-4 Mar 1997, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ed.: P.A. Cochrane et al

0.020744089 = product of:
  0.041488178 = sum of:
    0.02749641 = weight(_text_:information in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02749641 = score(doc=2339,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
    0.013991767 = product of:
      0.027983533 = sum of:
        0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027983533 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Text classification (TC) is a core technique for text mining and information retrieval. It has been applied to many applications in many different research and industrial areas. Term-weighting schemes assign an appropriate weight to each term to obtain a high TC performance. Although term weighting is one of the important modules for TC and TC has different peculiarities from those in information retrieval, many term-weighting schemes used in information retrieval, such as term frequency-inverse document frequency (tf-idf), have been used in TC in the same manner. The peculiarity of TC that differs most from information retrieval is the existence of class information. This article proposes a new term-weighting scheme that uses class information using positive and negative class distributions. As a result, the proposed scheme, log tf-TRR, consistently performs better than do other schemes using class information as well as traditional schemes such as tf-idf.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2553-2565

0.019302592 = product of:
  0.038605183 = sum of:
    0.016039573 = weight(_text_:information in 1673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016039573 = score(doc=1673,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1673, 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=1673)
    0.02256561 = product of:
      0.04513122 = sum of:
        0.04513122 = weight(_text_:22 in 1673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04513122 = score(doc=1673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1673, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1673)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Wolverhampton Web Library (WWLib) is a WWW search engine that provides access to UK based information. The experimental version developed in 1995, was a success but highlighted the need for a much higher degree of automation. An interesting feature of the experimental WWLib was that it organised information according to DDC. Discusses the advantages of classification and describes the automatic classifier that is being developed in Java as part of the new, fully automated WWLib

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

0.017864795 = product of:
  0.03572959 = sum of:
    0.021737823 = weight(_text_:information in 1755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021737823 = score(doc=1755,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 1755, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1755)
    0.013991767 = product of:
      0.027983533 = sum of:
        0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 1755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027983533 = score(doc=1755,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 1755, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1755)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

There has been considerable interest in recent years in providing automated information services, such as information classification, by means of a society of collaborative agents. These agents augment each other's knowledge structures (e.g., the vocabularies) and assist each other in providing efficient information services to a human user. However, when the number of agents present in the society increases, exhaustive communication and collaboration among agents result in a [arge communication overhead and increased delays in response time. This paper introduces a method to achieve selective interaction with a relatively small number of potentially useful agents, based an simple agent modeling and acquaintance lists. The key idea presented here is that the acquaintance list of an agent, representing a small number of other agents to be collaborated with, is dynamically adjusted. The best acquaintances are automatically discovered using a learning algorithm, based an the past history of collaboration. Experimental results are presented to demonstrate that such dynamically learned acquaintance lists can lead to high quality of classification, while significantly reducing the delay in response time.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.10, S.966-975

0.017864795 = product of:
  0.03572959 = sum of:
    0.021737823 = weight(_text_:information in 1998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021737823 = score(doc=1998,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 1998, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1998)
    0.013991767 = product of:
      0.027983533 = sum of:
        0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 1998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027983533 = score(doc=1998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 1998, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Since millions seek health information online, it is vital for this information to be comprehensible. Most studies use readability formulas, which ignore vocabulary, and conclude that online health information is too difficult. We developed a vocabularly-based, naïve Bayes classifier to distinguish between three difficulty levels in text. It proved 98% accurate in a 250-document evaluation. We compared our classifier with readability formulas for 90 new documents with different origins and asked representative human evaluators, an expert and a consumer, to judge each document. Average readability grade levels for educational and commercial pages was 10th grade or higher, too difficult according to current literature. In contrast, the classifier showed that 70-90% of these pages were written at an intermediate, appropriate level indicating that vocabulary usage is frequently appropriate in text considered too difficult by readability formula evaluations. The expert considered the pages more difficult for a consumer than the consumer did.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1409-1419

0.01695365 = product of:
  0.0339073 = sum of:
    0.011341691 = weight(_text_:information in 141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011341691 = score(doc=141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 141, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=141)
    0.02256561 = product of:
      0.04513122 = sum of:
        0.04513122 = weight(_text_:22 in 141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04513122 = score(doc=141,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 141, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=141)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Pages

S.1-22

0.01695365 = product of:
  0.0339073 = sum of:
    0.011341691 = weight(_text_:information in 2560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011341691 = score(doc=2560,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2560, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2560)
    0.02256561 = product of:
      0.04513122 = sum of:
        0.04513122 = weight(_text_:22 in 2560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04513122 = score(doc=2560,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2560, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2560)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The proliferation of digital resources and their integration into a traditional library setting has created a pressing need for an automated tool that organizes textual information based on library classification schemes. Automated text classification is a research field of developing tools, methods, and models to automate text classification. This article describes the current popular approach for text classification and major text classification projects and applications that are based on library classification schemes. Related issues and challenges are discussed, and a number of considerations for the challenges are examined.

Date

22. 9.2008 18:31:54

0.014148293 = product of:
  0.028296586 = sum of:
    0.008101207 = weight(_text_:information in 1665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008101207 = score(doc=1665,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1665, 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=1665)
    0.020195378 = product of:
      0.040390756 = sum of:
        0.040390756 = weight(_text_:technology in 1665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040390756 = score(doc=1665,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.2849816 = fieldWeight in 1665, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1665)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Taxonomies are an important part of any knowledge management (KM) system, and automatic classification software is emerging as a "killer app" for consumer and enterprise portals. A number of companies such as Inxight Software , Mohomine, Metacode, and others claim to interpret the semantic content of any textual document and automatically classify text on the fly. The promise that software could automatically produce a Yahoo-style directory is a siren call not many IT managers are able to resist. KM needs have grown more complex due to the increasing amount of digital information, the declining effectiveness of keyword searching, and heterogeneous document formats in corporate databases. This environment requires innovative KM tools, and automatic classification technology is an example of this new kind of software. These products can be divided into three categories according to their underlying technology - rules-based, catalog-by-example, and statistical clustering. Evolving trends in this market include framing classification as a cyborg (computer- and human-based) activity and the increasing use of extensible markup language (XML) and support vector machine (SVM) technology. In this article, we'll survey the rapidly changing automatic classification software market and examine the features and capabilities of leading classification products.

0.014148293 = product of:
  0.028296586 = sum of:
    0.008101207 = weight(_text_:information in 3172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008101207 = score(doc=3172,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3172, 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=3172)
    0.020195378 = product of:
      0.040390756 = sum of:
        0.040390756 = weight(_text_:technology in 3172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040390756 = score(doc=3172,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.2849816 = fieldWeight in 3172, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3172)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In this paper, we present a theoretical analysis and extensive experiments on the automated assignment of Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) classes to bibliographic data with a supervised machine-learning approach. Library classification systems, such as the DDC, impose great obstacles on state-of-art text categorization (TC) technologies, including deep hierarchy, data sparseness, and skewed distribution. We first analyze statistically the document and category distributions over the DDC, and discuss the obstacles imposed by bibliographic corpora and library classification schemes on TC technology. To overcome these obstacles, we propose an innovative algorithm to reshape the DDC structure into a balanced virtual tree by balancing the category distribution and flattening the hierarchy. To improve the classification effectiveness to a level acceptable to real-world applications, we propose an interactive classification model that is able to predict a class of any depth within a limited number of user interactions. The experiments are conducted on a large bibliographic collection created by the Library of Congress within the science and technology domains over 10 years. With no more than three interactions, a classification accuracy of nearly 90% is achieved, thus providing a practical solution to the automatic bibliographic classification problem.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.11, S.2269-2286

0.01393111 = product of:
  0.02786222 = sum of:
    0.016202414 = weight(_text_:information in 5769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016202414 = score(doc=5769,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = 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)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 5769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=5769,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 5769, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5769)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.01393111 = product of:
  0.02786222 = sum of:
    0.016202414 = weight(_text_:information in 4921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016202414 = score(doc=4921,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 4921, 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=4921)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 4921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=4921,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 4921, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4921)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Traditional text-based document classifiers tend to perform poorly an the Web. Text in Web documents is usually noisy and often does not contain enough information to determine their topic. However, the Web provides a different source that can be useful to document classification: its hyperlink structure. In this work, the authors evaluate how the link structure of the Web can be used to determine a measure of similarity appropriate for document classification. They experiment with five different similarity measures and determine their adequacy for predicting the topic of a Web page. Tests performed an a Web directory Show that link information alone allows classifying documents with an average precision of 86%. Further, when combined with a traditional textbased classifier, precision increases to values of up to 90%, representing gains that range from 63 to 132% over the use of text-based classification alone. Because the measures proposed in this article are straightforward to compute, they provide a practical and effective solution for Web classification and related information retrieval tasks. Further, the authors provide an important set of guidelines an how link structure can be used effectively to classify Web documents.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.2, S.208-221

0.01393111 = product of:
  0.02786222 = sum of:
    0.016202414 = weight(_text_:information in 2852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016202414 = score(doc=2852,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2852, 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=2852)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 2852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=2852,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2852, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2852)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Social tagging is one of the most popular methods for collecting crowd-sourced information in galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAMs). However, when the number of social tags grows rapidly, using them becomes problematic and, as a result, they are often left as simply big data that cannot be used for practical purposes. To revitalize the use of this crowd-sourced information, we propose using social tags to link and cluster artworks based on an experimental study using an online collection at the Gyeonggi Museum of Modern Art (GMoMA). We view social tagging as a folksonomy, where artworks are classified by keywords of the crowd's various interpretations and one artwork can belong to several different categories simultaneously. To leverage this strength of social tags, we used a clustering method called "link communities" to detect overlapping communities in a network of artworks constructed by computing similarities between all artwork pairs. We used this framework to identify semantic relationships and clusters of similar artworks. By comparing the clustering results with curators' manual classification results, we demonstrated the potential of social tagging data for automatically clustering artworks in a way that reflects the dynamic perspectives of crowds.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.885-899