Search (925 results, page 1 of 47)

0.17911148 = sum of:
  0.1371676 = product of:
    0.4115028 = sum of:
      0.4115028 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.4115028 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.43931273 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041943885 = product of:
    0.08388777 = sum of:
      0.08388777 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08388777 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.42292362 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.12482527 = product of:
  0.24965054 = sum of:
    0.24965054 = sum of:
      0.20752688 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20752688 = score(doc=3197,freq=34.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          1.0462552 = fieldWeight in 3197, product of:
            5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
              34.0 = termFreq=34.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3197)
      0.042123657 = weight(_text_:22 in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042123657 = score(doc=3197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3197, 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=3197)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Indexing consists of both novel and more traditional techniques. Cutting-edge indexing techniques, such as automatic indexing, ontologies, and topic maps, were developed independently of older techniques such as thesauri, but it is now recognized that these older methods also hold expertise. Indexing describes various traditional and novel indexing techniques, giving information professionals and students of library and information sciences a broad and comprehensible introduction to indexing. This title consists of twelve chapters: an Introduction to subject readings and theasauri; Automatic indexing versus manual indexing; Techniques applied in automatic indexing of text material; Automatic indexing of images; The black art of indexing moving images; Automatic indexing of music; Taxonomies and ontologies; Metadata formats and indexing; Tagging; Topic maps; Indexing the web; and The Semantic Web.

Date

24. 8.2016 14:03:22

LCSH

Indexing

Subject

Indexing

0.08620159 = product of:
  0.17240319 = sum of:
    0.17240319 = sum of:
      0.1162383 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1162383 = score(doc=1149,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.5860202 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.056164876 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056164876 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other.

Date

17.12.2013 11:02:22

Theme

Citation indexing

0.08230056 = product of:
  0.16460112 = sum of:
    0.16460112 = product of:
      0.49380335 = sum of:
        0.49380335 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.49380335 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43931273 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.077335455 = product of:
  0.15467091 = sum of:
    0.15467091 = sum of:
      0.112547256 = weight(_text_:indexing in 773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.112547256 = score(doc=773,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.5674116 = fieldWeight in 773, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=773)
      0.042123657 = weight(_text_:22 in 773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042123657 = score(doc=773,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 773, 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=773)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Inhalt: Keynote address - Order and KO - Conceptology in KO - Mathematics in KO - Psychology and KO - Science and KO - Problems in KO - KOS general questions - KOS structure and elements, facet analysis - KOS construction - KOS Maintenance, updating and storage - Compatibility, concordance, interoperability between indexing languages - Theory of classing and indexing - Taxonomies in communications engineering - Special KOSs in literature - Special KOSs in cultural sciences - General problems of natural language, derived indexing, tagging - Automatic language processing - Online retrieval systems and technologies - Problems of terminology - Subject-oriented terminology work - General problems of applied classing and indexing, catalogues, guidelines - Classing and indexing of non-book materials (images, archives, museums) - Personas and institutions in KO, cultural warrant - Organizing team - List of contributors

Date

22. 2.2013 12:09:34

0.077335455 = product of:
  0.15467091 = sum of:
    0.15467091 = sum of:
      0.112547256 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3019) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.112547256 = score(doc=3019,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.5674116 = fieldWeight in 3019, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3019)
      0.042123657 = weight(_text_:22 in 3019) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042123657 = score(doc=3019,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3019, 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=3019)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The contribution of this article is twofold. First, we present Indexing by latent Dirichlet allocation (LDI), an automatic document indexing method. Many ad hoc applications, or their variants with smoothing techniques suggested in LDA-based language modeling, can result in unsatisfactory performance as the document representations do not accurately reflect concept space. To improve document retrieval performance, we introduce a new definition of document probability vectors in the context of LDA and present a novel scheme for automatic document indexing based on LDA. Second, we propose an Ensemble Model (EnM) for document retrieval. EnM combines basic indexing models by assigning different weights and attempts to uncover the optimal weights to maximize the mean average precision. To solve the optimization problem, we propose an algorithm, which is derived based on the boosting method. The results of our computational experiments on benchmark data sets indicate that both the proposed approaches are viable options for document retrieval.

Date

12. 6.2016 21:39:22

0.07704693 = product of:
  0.15409386 = sum of:
    0.15409386 = sum of:
      0.08388777 = weight(_text_:indexing in 5865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08388777 = score(doc=5865,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.42292362 = fieldWeight in 5865, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5865)
      0.0702061 = weight(_text_:22 in 5865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0702061 = score(doc=5865,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5865, 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=5865)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We present a short survey of the literature on indexing and retrieval of mathematical knowledge, with pointers to 72 papers and tentative taxonomies of both retrieval problems and recurring techniques.

Date

22. 2.2017 12:51:57

0.07704693 = product of:
  0.15409386 = sum of:
    0.15409386 = sum of:
      0.08388777 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08388777 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.42292362 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
      0.0702061 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0702061 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2751, 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=2751)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

0.07704693 = product of:
  0.15409386 = sum of:
    0.15409386 = sum of:
      0.08388777 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08388777 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.42292362 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
      0.0702061 = weight(_text_:22 in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0702061 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2759, 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=2759)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

0.071394496 = product of:
  0.14278899 = sum of:
    0.14278899 = sum of:
      0.10066533 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10066533 = score(doc=4359,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.5075084 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
      0.042123657 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042123657 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A recent study in information science (IS), raises important issues concerning the value of human indexing and basic theories of indexing and information retrieval, as well as the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in IS and the underlying theories of knowledge informing the field. The present article uses L&E as the point of departure for demonstrating in what way more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in indexing, knowledge organization, and information retrieval. The artcle is motivated by the observation that philosophical contributions tend to be ignored in IS if they are not directly formed as criticisms or invitations to dialogs. It is part of the author's ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be followed by analyzes of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is formulated as a criticism of a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as a support to the emerging social paradigm in this field.

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.071394496 = product of:
  0.14278899 = sum of:
    0.14278899 = sum of:
      0.10066533 = weight(_text_:indexing in 987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10066533 = score(doc=987,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.5075084 = fieldWeight in 987, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=987)
      0.042123657 = weight(_text_:22 in 987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042123657 = score(doc=987,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 987, 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=987)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This book covers the basics of semantic web technologies and indexing languages, and describes their contribution to improve languages as a tool for subject queries and knowledge exploration. The book is relevant to information scientists, knowledge workers and indexers. It provides a suitable combination of theoretical foundations and practical applications.

Content

Introduction: envisioning semantic information spacesIndexing and knowledge organization -- Semantic technologies for knowledge representation -- Information retrieval and knowledge exploration -- Approaches to handle heterogeneity -- Problems with establishing semantic interoperability -- Formalization in indexing languages -- Typification of semantic relations -- Inferences in retrieval processes -- Semantic interoperability and inferences -- Remaining research questions.

Date

23. 7.2017 13:49:22

LCSH

Indexing

Subject

Indexing

0.06968607 = product of:
  0.13937214 = sum of:
    0.13937214 = sum of:
      0.11128971 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11128971 = score(doc=4399,freq=22.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.56107163 = fieldWeight in 4399, product of:
            4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
              22.0 = termFreq=22.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4399)
      0.028082438 = weight(_text_:22 in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028082438 = score(doc=4399,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4399, 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=4399)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Indexing plays a vital role in Information Retrieval. With the availability of huge volume of information, it has become necessary to index the information in such a way to make easier for the end users to find the information they want efficiently and accurately. Keyword-based indexing uses words as indexing terms. It is not capable of capturing the implicit relation among terms or the semantics of the words in the document. To eliminate this limitation, ontology-based indexing came into existence, which allows semantic based indexing to solve complex and indirect user queries. Ontologies are used for document indexing which allows semantic based information retrieval. Existing ontologies or the ones constructed from scratch are used presently for indexing. Constructing ontologies from scratch is a labor-intensive task and requires extensive domain knowledge whereas use of an existing ontology may leave some important concepts in documents un-annotated. Using multiple ontologies can overcome the problem of missing out concepts to a great extent, but it is difficult to manage (changes in ontologies over time by their developers) multiple ontologies and ontology heterogeneity also arises due to ontologies constructed by different ontology developers. One possible solution to managing multiple ontologies and build from scratch is to use modular ontologies for indexing.
Modular ontologies are built in modular manner by combining modules from multiple relevant ontologies. Ontology heterogeneity also arises during modular ontology construction because multiple ontologies are being dealt with, during this process. Ontologies need to be aligned before using them for modular ontology construction. The existing approaches for ontology alignment compare all the concepts of each ontology to be aligned, hence not optimized in terms of time and search space utilization. A new indexing technique is proposed based on modular ontology. An efficient ontology alignment technique is proposed to solve the heterogeneity problem during the construction of modular ontology. Results are satisfactory as Precision and Recall are improved by (8%) and (10%) respectively. The value of Pearsons Correlation Coefficient for degree of similarity, time, search space requirement, precision and recall are close to 1 which shows that the results are significant. Further research can be carried out for using modular ontology based indexing technique for Multimedia Information Retrieval and Bio-Medical information retrieval.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.06465119 = product of:
  0.12930238 = sum of:
    0.12930238 = sum of:
      0.08717872 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08717872 = score(doc=4887,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.4395151 = fieldWeight in 4887, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4887)
      0.042123657 = weight(_text_:22 in 4887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042123657 = score(doc=4887,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4887, 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=4887)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents an overview of the activities of the "Unità di Ricerca presso Terzi" (URT) - "Indexing and classification systems" of the National Research Council (CNR), which deals with research in organization and document management systems, indexing, classification, knowledge, and content management. Particular attention will be focused on the project of the Electronic Health Record Technological Infrastructure (InFSE), in which the URT works on the definition of ontological models, and vocabularies supporting EHR with the aim to build an updated Italian version of a unified medical reporting language. Although current Italian legislation makes mandatory the use of internationally recognized classification systems to help interoperability and exchange of information, the current structure of those systems does not allow their full use in the Italian context. For all these reasons, it is necessary to make some adaptations in the International Classification of Disease 9th Revision terminology, used for diagnosis encoding, and in the Logical Observation Names and Codes, used for encoding laboratory observations.

Date

22. 1.2012 12:55:24

0.06465119 = product of:
  0.12930238 = sum of:
    0.12930238 = sum of:
      0.08717872 = weight(_text_:indexing in 690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08717872 = score(doc=690,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.4395151 = fieldWeight in 690, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=690)
      0.042123657 = weight(_text_:22 in 690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042123657 = score(doc=690,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 690, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=690)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We describe the latent semantic indexing subspace signature model (LSISSM) for semantic content representation of unstructured text. Grounded on singular value decomposition, the model represents terms and documents by the distribution signatures of their statistical contribution across the top-ranking latent concept dimensions. LSISSM matches term signatures with document signatures according to their mapping coherence between latent semantic indexing (LSI) term subspace and LSI document subspace. LSISSM does feature reduction and finds a low-rank approximation of scalable and sparse term-document matrices. Experiments demonstrate that this approach significantly improves the performance of major clustering algorithms such as standard K-means and self-organizing maps compared with the vector space model and the traditional LSI model. The unique contribution ranking mechanism in LSISSM also improves the initialization of standard K-means compared with random seeding procedure, which sometimes causes low efficiency and effectiveness of clustering. A two-stage initialization strategy based on LSISSM significantly reduces the running time of standard K-means procedures.

Date

23. 3.2013 13:22:36

Object

Latent semantic indexing

0.061637547 = product of:
  0.123275094 = sum of:
    0.123275094 = sum of:
      0.06711022 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06711022 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.3383389 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
      0.056164876 = weight(_text_:22 in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056164876 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1953, 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=1953)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Scientific repositories create a new environment for studying traditional information science issues. The interaction between indexing terms provided by users and controlled vocabularies continues to be an area of debate and study. This article reports and analyzes findings from a study that mapped the relationships between free text keywords and controlled vocabulary terms used in the sciences. Based on this study's findings recommendations are made about which vocabularies may be better to use in scientific data repositories.

Date

29. 5.2015 19:09:22

0.05949541 = product of:
  0.11899082 = sum of:
    0.11899082 = sum of:
      0.08388777 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08388777 = score(doc=1457,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.42292362 = fieldWeight in 1457, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1457)
      0.03510305 = weight(_text_:22 in 1457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03510305 = score(doc=1457,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1457, 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=1457)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The object of this paper concerns the knowledge organization for the indexing and retrieval system relating to ethnology and anthropology of culture, in the part regarding the folk culture of the Polish Carpathian Mountains region. It is assumed that a carefully prepared organizational pattern of non-linguistic knowledge (domain knowledge), expressed in the form of nested arrangements of terms, should be an indispensable element of the system under construction. Such arrangements will constitute adequate material for generating, depending on needs, a proper indexing and retrieval language. It is also assumed that the development of a proper organizational pattern for domain knowledge will be the starting point for the creation of the system language. That pattern was called a nested arrangement of terms. Its structure reflects the structure of knowledge in the field and it is expressed by a proper terminological system. Consequently, a unique knowledge map has been developed. At the present stage, such patterns have been developed for the following categories of culture: ethos, customs (ceremonies), demonology, magic, and folk medicine. Consequently, it was possible to build a number of knowledge organizational patterns, in the form of nested arrangements of terms. Keyword languages, or in fact vocabularies of those languages, that are most often used in the present-day indexing and retrieval systems, were generated from those patterns.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.056652397 = product of:
  0.113304794 = sum of:
    0.113304794 = sum of:
      0.07118113 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07118113 = score(doc=4062,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.3588626 = fieldWeight in 4062, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4062)
      0.042123657 = weight(_text_:22 in 4062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042123657 = score(doc=4062,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4062, 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=4062)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An African Studies Thesaurus was constructed for the purpose of subject indexing and retrieval in the Library of the African Studies Centre (ASC) in Leiden in 2001-2006. A word-based system was considered a more user-friendly alternative to the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) codes which were used for subject access in the ASC catalogue at the time. In the process of thesaurus construction UDC codes were used as a starting point. In addition, when constructing the thesaurus, each descriptor was also assigned a UDC code from the recent edition of the UDC Master Reference File (MRF), thus replacing many of the old UDC codes used by then, some of which dated from the 1952 French edition. The presence of the UDC codes in the thesaurus leaves open the possibility of linking the thesaurus to different language versions of the UDC MRF in the future. In a parallel but separate operation each UDC code which had been assigned to an item in the library's catalogue was subsequently converted into one or more thesaurus descriptors.

Date

22. 7.2010 19:48:33

0.054952256 = product of:
  0.10990451 = sum of:
    0.10990451 = sum of:
      0.050332665 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050332665 = score(doc=1453,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 1453, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1453)
      0.05957185 = weight(_text_:22 in 1453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05957185 = score(doc=1453,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1453, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1453)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We propose, in this work, a method of medical image indexing and research by exploiting their own digital component. We represent the image digital component by a vector of characteristics what we will call: numerical signature of the image. Using the Gabor wavelets, each image of the training medical base is indexed and represented by its characteristics (texture). We thus will build (in offline) a numerical data base of signature. This enables us (in online) to carry out a numerical search for similarity compared to a request image. In order to evaluate the performances we tested our application on a training mammography images basis. The results obtained show well that the representation of the digital component of the images proves to be significant as regards search for information in imagery.

Date

5. 9.2014 18:22:35

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.053932853 = product of:
  0.107865706 = sum of:
    0.107865706 = sum of:
      0.05872144 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05872144 = score(doc=2092,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.29604656 = fieldWeight in 2092, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2092)
      0.049144268 = weight(_text_:22 in 2092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049144268 = score(doc=2092,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2092, 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=2092)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The object of this literature review is to provide a historical perspective of R and D work in the area of Knowledge Organization (KO). This overview/summarization will provide information on major areas of KO. Journal articles published in core areas of KO: (Classification, Indexing, Thesauri and Taxonomies, Internet and Subject approach to information in the electronic era and Ontologies will be predominantly covered in this literature review. Coverage in this overview may not be completely exhaustive, but it succinctly showcases major developments in the area of KO. This review is a good source of additional reading material on KO apart from prescribed reading material on KO

Date

22. 6.2015 16:13:38

0.053875998 = product of:
  0.107751995 = sum of:
    0.107751995 = sum of:
      0.07264894 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07264894 = score(doc=1418,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.3662626 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
      0.03510305 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03510305 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1418, 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=1418)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Categories, or concepts of high generality representing the most basic kinds of entities in the world, have long been understood to be a fundamental element in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs), particularly faceted ones. Commentators on facet analysis have tended to foreground the role of categories in the structuring of controlled vocabularies and the construction of compound index terms, and the implications of this for subject representation and information retrieval. Less attention has been paid to the variety of ways in which categories can shape the overall architectonic framework of a KOS. This case study explores the range of functions that categories took in structuring various aspects of an early analytico-synthetic KOS, Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI). Within SI, categories not only functioned as mechanisms to partition an index vocabulary into smaller groupings of terms and as elements in the construction of compound index terms but also served as means of defining the units of indexing, or index items, incorporated into an index; determining the organization of card index files and the articulation of the guide card system serving as a navigational aids thereto; and setting structural constraints to the establishment of cross-references between terms. In all these ways, Kaiser's system of categories contributed to the general systematicity of SI.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik