Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Golub, K."
  • × theme_ss:"Automatisches Klassifizieren"
  1. Golub, K.; Hamon, T.; Ardö, A.: Automated classification of textual documents based on a controlled vocabulary in engineering (2007) 0.01 
    0.012924549 = product of:
  0.051698197 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 1461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=1461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 1461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1461)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Automated subject classification has been a challenging research issue for many years now, receiving particular attention in the past decade due to rapid increase of digital documents. The most frequent approach to automated classification is machine learning. It, however, requires training documents and performs well on new documents only if these are similar enough to the former. We explore a string-matching algorithm based on a controlled vocabulary, which does not require training documents - instead it reuses the intellectual work put into creating the controlled vocabulary. Terms from the Engineering Information thesaurus and classification scheme were matched against title and abstract of engineering papers from the Compendex database. Simple string-matching was enhanced by several methods such as term weighting schemes and cut-offs, exclusion of certain terms, and en- richment of the controlled vocabulary with automatically extracted terms. The best results are 76% recall when the controlled vocabulary is enriched with new terms, and 79% precision when certain terms are excluded. Precision of individual classes is up to 98%. These results are comparable to state-of-the-art machine-learning algorithms.
  2. Golub, K.: Automated subject classification of textual web documents (2006) 0.01 
    0.0067679947 = product of:
  0.027071979 = sum of:
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 5600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=5600,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 5600, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5600)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - To provide an integrated perspective to similarities and differences between approaches to automated classification in different research communities (machine learning, information retrieval and library science), and point to problems with the approaches and automated classification as such. Design/methodology/approach - A range of works dealing with automated classification of full-text web documents are discussed. Explorations of individual approaches are given in the following sections: special features (description, differences, evaluation), application and characteristics of web pages. Findings - Provides major similarities and differences between the three approaches: document pre-processing and utilization of web-specific document characteristics is common to all the approaches; major differences are in applied algorithms, employment or not of the vector space model and of controlled vocabularies. Problems of automated classification are recognized. Research limitations/implications - The paper does not attempt to provide an exhaustive bibliography of related resources. Practical implications - As an integrated overview of approaches from different research communities with application examples, it is very useful for students in library and information science and computer science, as well as for practitioners. Researchers from one community have the information on how similar tasks are conducted in different communities. Originality/value - To the author's knowledge, no review paper on automated text classification attempted to discuss more than one community's approach from an integrated perspective.
  3. Golub, K.; Hansson, J.; Soergel, D.; Tudhope, D.: Managing classification in libraries : a methodological outline for evaluating automatic subject indexing and classification in Swedish library catalogues (2015) 0.00 
    0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 2300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=2300,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 2300, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2300)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Authors

Years