Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Automatisches Indexieren"
  1. Souza, R.R.; Raghavan, K.S.: ¬A methodology for noun phrase-based automatic indexing (2006) 0.02 
    0.018307107 = product of:
  0.054921318 = sum of:
    0.054921318 = product of:
      0.109842636 = sum of:
        0.109842636 = weight(_text_:methodology in 173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109842636 = score(doc=173,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.5172295 = fieldWeight in 173, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=173)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The scholarly community is increasingly employing the Web both for publication of scholarly output and for locating and accessing relevant scholarly literature. Organization of this vast body of digital information assumes significance in this context. The sheer volume of digital information to be handled makes traditional indexing and knowledge representation strategies ineffective and impractical. It is, therefore, worth exploring new approaches. An approach being discussed considers the intrinsic semantics of texts of documents. Based on the hypothesis that noun phrases in a text are semantically rich in terms of their ability to represent the subject content of the document, this approach seeks to identify and extract noun phrases instead of single keywords, and use them as descriptors. This paper presents a methodology that has been developed for extracting noun phrases from Portuguese texts. The results of an experiment carried out to test the adequacy of the methodology are also presented.
  2. Tsai, C.-F.; McGarry, K.; Tait, J.: Qualitative evaluation of automatic assignment of keywords to images (2006) 0.02 
    0.015255922 = product of:
  0.045767765 = sum of:
    0.045767765 = product of:
      0.09153553 = sum of:
        0.09153553 = weight(_text_:methodology in 963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09153553 = score(doc=963,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.43102458 = fieldWeight in 963, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    In image retrieval, most systems lack user-centred evaluation since they are assessed by some chosen ground truth dataset. The results reported through precision and recall assessed against the ground truth are thought of as being an acceptable surrogate for the judgment of real users. Much current research focuses on automatically assigning keywords to images for enhancing retrieval effectiveness. However, evaluation methods are usually based on system-level assessment, e.g. classification accuracy based on some chosen ground truth dataset. In this paper, we present a qualitative evaluation methodology for automatic image indexing systems. The automatic indexing task is formulated as one of image annotation, or automatic metadata generation for images. The evaluation is composed of two individual methods. First, the automatic indexing annotation results are assessed by human subjects. Second, the subjects are asked to annotate some chosen images as the test set whose annotations are used as ground truth. Then, the system is tested by the test set whose annotation results are judged against the ground truth. Only one of these methods is reported for most systems on which user-centred evaluation are conducted. We believe that both methods need to be considered for full evaluation. We also provide an example evaluation of our system based on this methodology. According to this study, our proposed evaluation methodology is able to provide deeper understanding of the system's performance.
  3. Hlava, M.M.K.: Automatic indexing : comparing rule-based and statistics-based indexing systems (2005) 0.01 
    0.014903667 = product of:
  0.044711 = sum of:
    0.044711 = product of:
      0.089422 = sum of:
        0.089422 = weight(_text_:22 in 6265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.089422 = score(doc=6265,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6265, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Information outlook. 9(2005) no.8, S.22-23
  4. Hauer, M.: Automatische Indexierung (2000) 0.01 
    0.012774572 = product of:
  0.038323715 = sum of:
    0.038323715 = product of:
      0.07664743 = sum of:
        0.07664743 = weight(_text_:22 in 5887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07664743 = score(doc=5887,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5887, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5887)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Wissen in Aktion: Wege des Knowledge Managements. 22. Online-Tagung der DGI, Frankfurt am Main, 2.-4.5.2000. Proceedings. Hrsg.: R. Schmidt
  5. Galvez, C.; Moya-Anegón, F. de: ¬An evaluation of conflation accuracy using finite-state transducers (2006) 0.01 
    0.010569612 = product of:
  0.031708833 = sum of:
    0.031708833 = product of:
      0.063417666 = sum of:
        0.063417666 = weight(_text_:methodology in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063417666 = score(doc=5599,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 5599, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5599)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - To evaluate the accuracy of conflation methods based on finite-state transducers (FSTs). Design/methodology/approach - Incorrectly lemmatized and stemmed forms may lead to the retrieval of inappropriate documents. Experimental studies to date have focused on retrieval performance, but very few on conflation performance. The process of normalization we used involved a linguistic toolbox that allowed us to construct, through graphic interfaces, electronic dictionaries represented internally by FSTs. The lexical resources developed were applied to a Spanish test corpus for merging term variants in canonical lemmatized forms. Conflation performance was evaluated in terms of an adaptation of recall and precision measures, based on accuracy and coverage, not actual retrieval. The results were compared with those obtained using a Spanish version of the Porter algorithm. Findings - The conclusion is that the main strength of lemmatization is its accuracy, whereas its main limitation is the underanalysis of variant forms. Originality/value - The report outlines the potential of transducers in their application to normalization processes.
  6. Jones, S.; Paynter, G.W.: Automatic extractionof document keyphrases for use in digital libraries : evaluations and applications (2002) 0.01 
    0.00880801 = product of:
  0.02642403 = sum of:
    0.02642403 = product of:
      0.05284806 = sum of:
        0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05284806 = score(doc=601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This article describes an evaluation of the Kea automatic keyphrase extraction algorithm. Document keyphrases are conventionally used as concise descriptors of document content, and are increasingly used in novel ways, including document clustering, searching and browsing interfaces, and retrieval engines. However, it is costly and time consuming to manually assign keyphrases to documents, motivating the development of tools that automatically perform this function. Previous studies have evaluated Kea's performance by measuring its ability to identify author keywords and keyphrases, but this methodology has a number of well-known limitations. The results presented in this article are based on evaluations by human assessors of the quality and appropriateness of Kea keyphrases. The results indicate that, in general, Kea produces keyphrases that are rated positively by human assessors. However, typical Kea settings can degrade performance, particularly those relating to keyphrase length and domain specificity. We found that for some settings, Kea's performance is better than that of similar systems, and that Kea's ranking of extracted keyphrases is effective. We also determined that author-specified keyphrases appear to exhibit an inherent ranking, and that they are rated highly and therefore suitable for use in training and evaluation of automatic keyphrasing systems.
  7. Lepsky, K.; Vorhauer, J.: Lingo - ein open source System für die Automatische Indexierung deutschsprachiger Dokumente (2006) 0.01 
    0.0085163815 = product of:
  0.025549144 = sum of:
    0.025549144 = product of:
      0.051098287 = sum of:
        0.051098287 = weight(_text_:22 in 3581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051098287 = score(doc=3581,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3581, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3581)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    24. 3.2006 12:22:02
  8. Probst, M.; Mittelbach, J.: Maschinelle Indexierung in der Sacherschließung wissenschaftlicher Bibliotheken (2006) 0.01 
    0.0085163815 = product of:
  0.025549144 = sum of:
    0.025549144 = product of:
      0.051098287 = sum of:
        0.051098287 = weight(_text_:22 in 1755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051098287 = score(doc=1755,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1755, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1755)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 3.2008 12:35:19
  9. Renz, M.: Automatische Inhaltserschließung im Zeichen von Wissensmanagement (2001) 0.01 
    0.0074518337 = product of:
  0.0223555 = sum of:
    0.0223555 = product of:
      0.044711 = sum of:
        0.044711 = weight(_text_:22 in 5671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044711 = score(doc=5671,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5671, 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=5671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 3.2001 13:14:48
  10. Newman, D.J.; Block, S.: Probabilistic topic decomposition of an eighteenth-century American newspaper (2006) 0.01 
    0.0074518337 = product of:
  0.0223555 = sum of:
    0.0223555 = product of:
      0.044711 = sum of:
        0.044711 = weight(_text_:22 in 5291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044711 = score(doc=5291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5291, 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=5291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 17:32:00
  11. Lorenz, S.: Konzeption und prototypische Realisierung einer begriffsbasierten Texterschließung (2006) 0.01 
    0.006387286 = product of:
  0.019161858 = sum of:
    0.019161858 = product of:
      0.038323715 = sum of:
        0.038323715 = weight(_text_:22 in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038323715 = score(doc=1746,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1746, 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=1746)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 3.2015 9:17:30
  12. Nohr, H.: Grundlagen der automatischen Indexierung : ein Lehrbuch (2003) 0.00 
    0.0042581907 = product of:
  0.012774572 = sum of:
    0.012774572 = product of:
      0.025549144 = sum of:
        0.025549144 = weight(_text_:22 in 1767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025549144 = score(doc=1767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1767, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 6.2009 12:46:51

Authors

Languages

Types

Themes