Search (63 results, page 1 of 4)

0.22910213 = product of:
  0.3054695 = sum of:
    0.07177531 = product of:
      0.21532592 = sum of:
        0.21532592 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21532592 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38312992 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = 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)
    0.21532592 = weight(_text_:2f in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21532592 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38312992 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191016 = 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)
    0.018368276 = product of:
      0.03673655 = sum of:
        0.03673655 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03673655 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = 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

0.03548306 = product of:
  0.14193223 = sum of:
    0.14193223 = sum of:
      0.080704644 = weight(_text_:methods in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.080704644 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191016 = queryNorm
          0.4441971 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.06122759 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06122759 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191016 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

0.024838142 = product of:
  0.09935257 = sum of:
    0.09935257 = sum of:
      0.056493253 = weight(_text_:methods in 2560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056493253 = score(doc=2560,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191016 = queryNorm
          0.31093797 = fieldWeight in 2560, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2560)
      0.042859312 = weight(_text_:22 in 2560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042859312 = score(doc=2560,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191016 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.021289835 = product of:
  0.08515934 = sum of:
    0.08515934 = sum of:
      0.048422787 = weight(_text_:methods in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048422787 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191016 = queryNorm
          0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
      0.03673655 = weight(_text_:22 in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03673655 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191016 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.021289835 = product of:
  0.08515934 = sum of:
    0.08515934 = sum of:
      0.048422787 = weight(_text_:methods in 2158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048422787 = score(doc=2158,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191016 = queryNorm
          0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 2158, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2158)
      0.03673655 = weight(_text_:22 in 2158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03673655 = score(doc=2158,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191016 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper introduces a project to develop a reliable, cost-effective method for classifying Internet texts into register categories, and apply that approach to the analysis of a large corpus of web documents. To date, the project has proceeded in 2 key phases. First, we developed a bottom-up method for web register classification, asking end users of the web to utilize a decision-tree survey to code relevant situational characteristics of web documents, resulting in a bottom-up identification of register and subregister categories. We present details regarding the development and testing of this method through a series of 10 pilot studies. Then, in the second phase of our project we applied this procedure to a corpus of 53,000 web documents. An analysis of the results demonstrates the effectiveness of these methods for web register classification and provides a preliminary description of the types and distribution of registers on the web.

Date

4. 8.2015 19:22:04

0.016014332 = product of:
  0.06405733 = sum of:
    0.06405733 = product of:
      0.12811466 = sum of:
        0.12811466 = weight(_text_:methods in 1496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12811466 = score(doc=1496,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.70514107 = fieldWeight in 1496, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1496)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An important aspect to performing text categorization is selecting appropriate supervised classification and feature selection methods. A comprehensive benchmark is needed to inform best practices in this broad application field. Previous benchmarks have evaluated performance for a few supervised classification and feature selection methods and limited ways to optimize them. The present work updates prior benchmarks by increasing the number of classifiers and feature selection methods order of magnitude, including adding recently developed, state-of-the-art methods. Specifically, this study used 229 text categorization data sets/tasks, and evaluated 28 classification methods (both well-established and proprietary/commercial) and 19 feature selection methods according to 4 classification performance metrics. We report several key findings that will be helpful in establishing best methodological practices for text categorization.

0.014193224 = product of:
  0.056772895 = sum of:
    0.056772895 = sum of:
      0.032281857 = weight(_text_:methods in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032281857 = score(doc=2741,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191016 = queryNorm
          0.17767884 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
      0.024491036 = weight(_text_:22 in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024491036 = score(doc=2741,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191016 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2741, 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=2741)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study seeks to find out how human beings cluster Web pages naturally. Twenty Web pages retrieved by the Northem Light search engine for each of 10 queries were sorted by 3 subjects into categories that were natural or meaningful to them. lt was found that different subjects clustered the same set of Web pages quite differently and created different categories. The average inter-subject similarity of the clusters created was a low 0.27. Subjects created an average of 5.4 clusters for each sorting. The categories constructed can be divided into 10 types. About 1/3 of the categories created were topical. Another 20% of the categories relate to the degree of relevance or usefulness. The rest of the categories were subject-independent categories such as format, purpose, authoritativeness and direction to other sources. The authors plan to develop automatic methods for categorizing Web pages using the common categories created by the subjects. lt is hoped that the techniques developed can be used by Web search engines to automatically organize Web pages retrieved into categories that are natural to users. 1. Introduction The World Wide Web is an increasingly important source of information for people globally because of its ease of access, the ease of publishing, its ability to transcend geographic and national boundaries, its flexibility and heterogeneity and its dynamic nature. However, Web users also find it increasingly difficult to locate relevant and useful information in this vast information storehouse. Web search engines, despite their scope and power, appear to be quite ineffective. They retrieve too many pages, and though they attempt to rank retrieved pages in order of probable relevance, often the relevant documents do not appear in the top-ranked 10 or 20 documents displayed. Several studies have found that users do not know how to use the advanced features of Web search engines, and do not know how to formulate and re-formulate queries. Users also typically exert minimal effort in performing, evaluating and refining their searches, and are unwilling to scan more than 10 or 20 items retrieved (Jansen, Spink, Bateman & Saracevic, 1998). This suggests that the conventional ranked-list display of search results does not satisfy user requirements, and that better ways of presenting and summarizing search results have to be developed. One promising approach is to group retrieved pages into clusters or categories to allow users to navigate immediately to the "promising" clusters where the most useful Web pages are likely to be located. This approach has been adopted by a number of search engines (notably Northem Light) and search agents.

Date

12. 9.2004 9:56:22

0.014123313 = product of:
  0.056493253 = sum of:
    0.056493253 = product of:
      0.112986505 = sum of:
        0.112986505 = weight(_text_:methods in 3386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.112986505 = score(doc=3386,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.62187594 = fieldWeight in 3386, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3386)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper reports a controlled study with statistical significance tests an five text categorization methods: the Support Vector Machines (SVM), a k-Nearest Neighbor (kNN) classifier, a neural network (NNet) approach, the Linear Leastsquares Fit (LLSF) mapping and a Naive Bayes (NB) classifier. We focus an the robustness of these methods in dealing with a skewed category distribution, and their performance as function of the training-set category frequency. Our results show that SVM, kNN and LLSF significantly outperform NNet and NB when the number of positive training instances per category are small (less than ten, and that all the methods perform comparably when the categories are sufficiently common (over 300 instances).

0.010483841 = product of:
  0.041935366 = sum of:
    0.041935366 = product of:
      0.08387073 = sum of:
        0.08387073 = weight(_text_:methods in 3464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08387073 = score(doc=3464,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.4616232 = fieldWeight in 3464, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We propose a new hybrid clustering framework to incorporate text mining with bibliometrics in journal set analysis. The framework integrates two different approaches: clustering ensemble and kernel-fusion clustering. To improve the flexibility and the efficiency of processing large-scale data, we propose an information-based weighting scheme to leverage the effect of multiple data sources in hybrid clustering. Three different algorithms are extended by the proposed weighting scheme and they are employed on a large journal set retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) database. The clustering performance of the proposed algorithms is systematically evaluated using multiple evaluation methods, and they were cross-compared with alternative methods. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed weighted hybrid clustering strategy is superior to other methods in clustering performance and efficiency. The proposed approach also provides a more refined structural mapping of journal sets, which is useful for monitoring and detecting new trends in different scientific fields.

0.010483841 = product of:
  0.041935366 = sum of:
    0.041935366 = product of:
      0.08387073 = sum of:
        0.08387073 = weight(_text_:methods in 1041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08387073 = score(doc=1041,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.4616232 = fieldWeight in 1041, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1041)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Recent studies of authorship attribution have used machine-learning methods including regularized multinomial logistic regression, neural nets, support vector machines, and the nearest shrunken centroid classifier to identify likely authors of disputed texts. These methods are all limited by an inability to perform open-set classification and account for text and corpus size. We propose a customized Bayesian logit-normal-beta-binomial classification model for supervised authorship attribution. The model is based on the beta-binomial distribution with an explicit inverse relationship between extra-binomial variation and text size. The model internally estimates the relationship of extra-binomial variation to text size, and uses Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) to produce distributions of posterior authorship probabilities instead of point estimates. We illustrate the method by training the machine-learning methods as well as the open-set Bayesian classifier on undisputed papers of The Federalist, and testing the method on documents historically attributed to Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. The Bayesian classifier was the best classifier of these texts.

0.010088081 = product of:
  0.040352322 = sum of:
    0.040352322 = product of:
      0.080704644 = sum of:
        0.080704644 = weight(_text_:methods in 2533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.080704644 = score(doc=2533,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.4441971 = fieldWeight in 2533, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2533)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Profiles several representative current efforts that apply established as well as more innovative methods of automated classification, organization or other method of categorisation of WWW resources

0.009986691 = product of:
  0.039946765 = sum of:
    0.039946765 = product of:
      0.07989353 = sum of:
        0.07989353 = weight(_text_:methods in 2219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07989353 = score(doc=2219,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.43973273 = fieldWeight in 2219, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2219)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Classification of office documents is one of the administrative functions carried out by almost every organization and institution which sends and receives correspondence. Processing of this increasing amount of information coming and out going mail, in particular its classification, is time consuming and expensive. More and more organizations are seeking a solution for meeting this challenge by designing computer based systems for automatic classification. Examines the present status of available knowledge and methodology which can be used for automatic classification of office documents. Besides a review of classic methods and techniques, the focus id also placed on the application of artificial intelligence

0.009184138 = product of:
  0.03673655 = sum of:
    0.03673655 = product of:
      0.0734731 = sum of:
        0.0734731 = weight(_text_:22 in 1046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0734731 = score(doc=1046,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1046, 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=1046)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

5. 5.2003 14:17:22

0.008736535 = product of:
  0.03494614 = sum of:
    0.03494614 = product of:
      0.06989228 = sum of:
        0.06989228 = weight(_text_:methods in 1853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06989228 = score(doc=1853,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.384686 = fieldWeight in 1853, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1853)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In a scientific and technological watch (STW) task, an expert user needs to survey the evolution of research topics in his area of specialisation in order to detect interesting changes. The majority of methods proposing evaluation metrics (bibliometrics and scientometrics studies) for STW rely solely an statistical data analysis methods (Co-citation analysis, co-word analysis). Such methods usually work an structured databases where the units of analysis (words, keywords) are already attributed to documents by human indexers. The advent of huge amounts of unstructured textual data has rendered necessary the integration of natural language processing (NLP) techniques to first extract meaningful units from texts. We propose a method for STW which is NLP-oriented. The method not only analyses texts linguistically in order to extract terms from them, but also uses linguistic relations (syntactic variations) as the basis for clustering. Terms and variation relations are formalised as weighted di-graphs which the clustering algorithm, CPCL (Classification by Preferential Clustered Link) will seek to reduce in order to produces classes. These classes ideally represent the research topics present in the corpus. The results of the classification are subjected to validation by an expert in STW.

0.008736535 = product of:
  0.03494614 = sum of:
    0.03494614 = product of:
      0.06989228 = sum of:
        0.06989228 = weight(_text_:methods in 5041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06989228 = score(doc=5041,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.384686 = fieldWeight in 5041, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5041)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Students use general web search engines as their primary source of research while trying to find answers to school-related questions. Although search engines are highly relevant for the general population, they may return results that are out of educational context. Another rising trend; social community question answering websites are the second choice for students who try to get answers from other peers online. We attempt discovering possible improvements in educational search by leveraging both of these information sources. For this purpose, we first implement a classifier for educational questions. This classifier is built by an ensemble method that employs several regular learning algorithms and retrieval based approaches that utilize external resources. We also build a query expander to facilitate classification. We further improve the classification using search engine results and obtain 83.5% accuracy. Although our work is entirely based on the Turkish language, the features could easily be mapped to other languages as well. In order to find out whether search engine ranking can be improved in the education domain using the classification model, we collect and label a set of query results retrieved from a general web search engine. We propose five ad-hoc methods to improve search ranking based on the idea that the query-document category relation is an indicator of relevance. We evaluate these methods for overall performance, varying query length and based on factoid and non-factoid queries. We show that some of the methods significantly improve the rankings in the education domain.

0.0085600205 = product of:
  0.034240082 = sum of:
    0.034240082 = product of:
      0.068480164 = sum of:
        0.068480164 = weight(_text_:methods in 1054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068480164 = score(doc=1054,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.37691376 = fieldWeight in 1054, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article presents the results of research into the automatic selection of Library of Congress Classification numbers based on the titles and subject headings in MARC records. The method used in this study was based on partial match retrieval techniques using various elements of new recors (i.e., those to be classified) as "queries", and a test database of classification clusters generated from previously classified MARC records. Sixty individual methods for automatic classification were tested on a set of 283 new records, using all combinations of four different partial match methods, five query types, and three representations of search terms. The results indicate that if the best method for a particular case can be determined, then up to 86% of the new records may be correctly classified. The single method with the best accuracy was able to select the correct classification for about 46% of the new records.

0.0085600205 = product of:
  0.034240082 = sum of:
    0.034240082 = product of:
      0.068480164 = sum of:
        0.068480164 = weight(_text_:methods in 4758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068480164 = score(doc=4758,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.37691376 = fieldWeight in 4758, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4758)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this article, we present a study about classification methods for large-scale categorization of product offers on e-shopping web sites. We present a study about the performance of previously proposed approaches and deployed a probabilistic approach to model the classification problem. We also studied an alternative way of modeling information about the description of product offers and investigated the usage of price and store of product offers as features adopted in the classification process. Our experiments used two collections of over a million product offers previously categorized by human editors and taxonomies of hundreds of categories from a real e-shopping web site. In these experiments, our method achieved an improvement of up to 9% in the quality of the categorization in comparison with the best baseline we have found.

0.0085600205 = product of:
  0.034240082 = sum of:
    0.034240082 = product of:
      0.068480164 = sum of:
        0.068480164 = weight(_text_:methods in 3015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068480164 = score(doc=3015,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.37691376 = fieldWeight in 3015, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3015)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We analyze the linguistic evolution of selected scientific disciplines over a 30-year time span (1970s to 2000s). Our focus is on four highly specialized disciplines at the boundaries of computer science that emerged during that time: computational linguistics, bioinformatics, digital construction, and microelectronics. Our analysis is driven by the question whether these disciplines develop a distinctive language use-both individually and collectively-over the given time period. The data set is the English Scientific Text Corpus (scitex), which includes texts from the 1970s/1980s and early 2000s. Our theoretical basis is register theory. In terms of methods, we combine corpus-based methods of feature extraction (various aggregated features [part-of-speech based], n-grams, lexico-grammatical patterns) and automatic text classification. The results of our research are directly relevant to the study of linguistic variation and languages for specific purposes (LSP) and have implications for various natural language processing (NLP) tasks, for example, authorship attribution, text mining, or training NLP tools.

0.008070464 = product of:
  0.032281857 = sum of:
    0.032281857 = product of:
      0.064563714 = sum of:
        0.064563714 = weight(_text_:methods in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064563714 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.35535768 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The use of terms from natural and social science titles and abstracts is studied from the perspective of sublanguages and their specialized dictionaries. Explores different notions of sublanguage distinctiveness. Object methods for separating hard and soft sciences are suggested based on measures of sublanguage use, dictionary characteristics, and sublanguage distinctiveness. Abstracts were automatically classified with a high degree of accuracy by using a formula that condsiders the degree of uniqueness of terms in each sublanguage. This may prove useful for text filtering of information retrieval systems

0.008070464 = product of:
  0.032281857 = sum of:
    0.032281857 = product of:
      0.064563714 = sum of:
        0.064563714 = weight(_text_:methods in 5051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064563714 = score(doc=5051,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.35535768 = fieldWeight in 5051, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Automatic text classification is the task of organizing documents into pre-determined classes, generally using machine learning algorithms. Generally speaking, it is one of the most important methods to organize and make use of the gigantic amounts of information that exist in unstructured textual format. Text classification is a widely studied research area of language processing and text mining. In traditional text classification, a document is represented as a bag of words where the words in other words terms are cut from their finer context i.e. their location in a sentence or in a document. Only the broader context of document is used with some type of term frequency information in the vector space. Consequently, semantics of words that can be inferred from the finer context of its location in a sentence and its relations with neighboring words are usually ignored. However, meaning of words, semantic connections between words, documents and even classes are obviously important since methods that capture semantics generally reach better classification performances. Several surveys have been published to analyze diverse approaches for the traditional text classification methods. Most of these surveys cover application of different semantic term relatedness methods in text classification up to a certain degree. However, they do not specifically target semantic text classification algorithms and their advantages over the traditional text classification. In order to fill this gap, we undertake a comprehensive discussion of semantic text classification vs. traditional text classification. This survey explores the past and recent advancements in semantic text classification and attempts to organize existing approaches under five fundamental categories; domain knowledge-based approaches, corpus-based approaches, deep learning based approaches, word/character sequence enhanced approaches and linguistic enriched approaches. Furthermore, this survey highlights the advantages of semantic text classification algorithms over the traditional text classification algorithms.