Search (39 results, page 1 of 2)

0.15655142 = product of:
  0.20873523 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 5045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=5045,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 5045, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5045)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.11292135 = weight(_text_:term in 5045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11292135 = score(doc=5045,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.5155283 = fieldWeight in 5045, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5045)
    0.08992833 = weight(_text_:frequency in 5045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08992833 = score(doc=5045,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.32531026 = fieldWeight in 5045, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5045)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Topic models often produce unexplainable topics that are filled with noisy words. The reason is that words in topic modeling have equal weights. High frequency words dominate the top topic word lists, but most of them are meaningless words, e.g., domain-specific stopwords. To address this issue, in this paper we aim to investigate how to weight words, and then develop a straightforward but effective term weighting scheme, namely entropy weighting (EW). The proposed EW scheme is based on conditional entropy measured by word co-occurrences. Compared with existing term weighting schemes, the highlight of EW is that it can automatically reward informative words. For more robust word weight, we further suggest a combination form of EW (CEW) with two existing weighting schemes. Basically, our CEW assigns meaningless words lower weights and informative words higher weights, leading to more coherent topics during topic modeling inference. We apply CEW to Dirichlet multinomial mixture and latent Dirichlet allocation, and evaluate it by topic quality, document clustering and classification tasks on 8 real world data sets. Experimental results show that weighting words can effectively improve the topic modeling performance over both short texts and normal long texts. More importantly, the proposed CEW significantly outperforms the existing term weighting schemes, since it further considers which words are informative.

0.087833405 = product of:
  0.17566681 = sum of:
    0.06775281 = weight(_text_:term in 3622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06775281 = score(doc=3622,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.309317 = fieldWeight in 3622, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3622)
    0.107914 = weight(_text_:frequency in 3622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.107914 = score(doc=3622,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.39037234 = fieldWeight in 3622, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3622)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Indexing is contextualized and a brief description is provided of some of the most used automatic indexing systems. We describe SISA, a system which uses location heuristics rules, statistical rules like term frequency (TF) or TF-IDF to obtain automatic or semi-automatic indexing, depending on the user's preference. The aim of this research is to ascertain which rules (location heuristics rules or TF-IDF rules) provide the best indexing terms. SISA is used to obtain the automatic indexing of 200 scientific articles on fruit growing written in Portuguese. It uses, on the one hand, location heuristics rules founded on the value of certain parts of the articles for indexing such as titles, abstracts, keywords, headings, first paragraph, conclusions and references and, on the other, TF-IDF rules. The indexing is then evaluated to ascertain retrieval performance through recall, precision and f-measure. Automatic indexing of the articles with location heuristics rules provided the best results with the evaluation measures.

0.059403453 = product of:
  0.118806906 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 1873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=1873,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 1873, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1873)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.11292135 = weight(_text_:term in 1873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11292135 = score(doc=1873,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.5155283 = fieldWeight in 1873, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1873)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Models based on deep convolutional networks have dominated recent image interpretation tasks; we investigate whether models which are also recurrent, or "temporally deep", are effective for tasks involving sequences, visual and otherwise. We develop a novel recurrent convolutional architecture suitable for large-scale visual learning which is end-to-end trainable, and demonstrate the value of these models on benchmark video recognition tasks, image description and retrieval problems, and video narration challenges. In contrast to current models which assume a fixed spatio-temporal receptive field or simple temporal averaging for sequential processing, recurrent convolutional models are "doubly deep" in that they can be compositional in spatial and temporal "layers". Such models may have advantages when target concepts are complex and/or training data are limited. Learning long-term dependencies is possible when nonlinearities are incorporated into the network state updates. Long-term RNN models are appealing in that they directly can map variable-length inputs (e.g., video frames) to variable length outputs (e.g., natural language text) and can model complex temporal dynamics; yet they can be optimized with backpropagation. Our recurrent long-term models are directly connected to modern visual convnet models and can be jointly trained to simultaneously learn temporal dynamics and convolutional perceptual representations. Our results show such models have distinct advantages over state-of-the-art models for recognition or generation which are separately defined and/or optimized.

0.05576417 = product of:
  0.11152834 = sum of:
    0.010528404 = product of:
      0.042113617 = sum of:
        0.042113617 = weight(_text_:based in 3434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042113617 = score(doc=3434,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.2977476 = fieldWeight in 3434, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3434)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.10099993 = weight(_text_:term in 3434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10099993 = score(doc=3434,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.46110258 = fieldWeight in 3434, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3434)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine whether the understandings of subject-indexing processes conducted by human indexers have a positive impact on the effectiveness of automatic subject term assignment through text categorization (TC). More specifically, human indexers' subject-indexing approaches, or conceptions, in conjunction with semantic sources were explored in the context of a typical scientific journal article dataset. Based on the premise that subject indexing approaches or conceptions with semantic sources are important for automatic subject term assignment through TC, this study proposed an indexing conception-based framework. For the purpose of this study, two research questions were explored: To what extent are semantic sources effective? To what extent are indexing conceptions effective? The experiments were conducted using a Support Vector Machine implementation in WEKA (I.H. Witten & E. Frank, [2000]). Using F-measure, the experiment results showed that cited works, source title, and title were as effective as the full text while a keyword was found more effective than the full text. In addition, the findings showed that an indexing conception-based framework was more effective than the full text. The content-oriented and the document-oriented indexing approaches especially were found more effective than the full text. Among three indexing conception-based approaches, the content-oriented approach and the document-oriented approach were more effective than the domain-oriented approach. In other words, in the context of a typical scientific journal article dataset, the objective contents and authors' intentions were more desirable for automatic subject term assignment via TC than the possible users' needs. The findings of this study support that incorporation of human indexers' indexing approaches or conception in conjunction with semantic sources has a positive impact on the effectiveness of automatic subject term assignment.

0.047906943 = product of:
  0.095813885 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=4292,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.08992833 = weight(_text_:frequency in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08992833 = score(doc=4292,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.32531026 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Subject indexing plays an important role in supporting subject access to information resources. Current subject indexing systems do not make adequate distinctions on the importance of assigned subject descriptors. Assigning numeric weights to subject descriptors to distinguish their importance to the documents can strengthen the role of subject metadata. Automated methods are more cost-effective. This study compares different automated weighting methods in different environments. Two evaluation methods were used to assess the performance. Experiments on three datasets in the biomedical domain suggest the performance of different weighting methods depends on whether it is an abstract or full text environment. Mutual information with bag-of-words representation shows the best average performance in the full text environment, while cosine with bag-of-words representation is the best in an abstract environment. The cosine measure has relatively consistent and robust performance. A direct weighting method, IDF (Inverse Document Frequency), can produce quick and reasonable estimates of the weights. Bag-of-words representation generally outperforms the concept-based representation. Further improvement in performance can be obtained by using the learning-to-rank method to integrate different weighting methods. This study follows up Lu and Mao (Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 1776-1784, 2015), in which an automated weighted subject indexing method was proposed and validated. The findings from this study contribute to more effective weighted subject indexing.

0.044085447 = product of:
  0.08817089 = sum of:
    0.008323434 = product of:
      0.033293735 = sum of:
        0.033293735 = weight(_text_:based in 3810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033293735 = score(doc=3810,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 3810, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3810)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.07984746 = weight(_text_:term in 3810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07984746 = score(doc=3810,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.3645336 = fieldWeight in 3810, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3810)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Nowadays, online data shows an astonishing increase and the issue of semantic indexing remains an open question. Ontologies and knowledge bases have been widely used to optimize performance. However, researchers are placing increased emphasis on internal relations of ontologies but neglect latent semantic relations between ontologies and documents. They generally annotate instances mentioned in documents, which are related to concepts in ontologies. In this paper, we propose an Ontology-based Latent Semantic Indexing approach utilizing Long Short-Term Memory networks (LSTM-OLSI). We utilize an importance-aware topic model to extract document-level semantic features and leverage ontologies to extract word-level contextual features. Then we encode the above two levels of features and match their embedding vectors utilizing LSTM networks. Finally, the experimental results reveal that LSTM-OLSI outperforms existing techniques and demonstrates deep comprehension of instances and articles.

0.031173116 = product of:
  0.06234623 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 2494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=2494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 2494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2494)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.056460675 = weight(_text_:term in 2494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056460675 = score(doc=2494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.25776416 = fieldWeight in 2494, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2494)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Tag recommendation strategies that exploit term co-occurrence patterns with tags previously assigned to the target object have consistently produced state-of-the-art results. However, such techniques work only for objects with previously assigned tags. Here we focus on tag recommendation for objects with no tags, a variation of the well-known \textit{cold start} problem. We start by evaluating state-of-the-art co-occurrence based methods in cold start. Our results show that the effectiveness of these methods suffers in this situation. Moreover, we show that employing various automatic filtering strategies to generate an initial tag set that enables the use of co-occurrence patterns produces only marginal improvements. We then propose a new approach that exploits both positive and negative user feedback to iteratively select input tags along with a genetic programming strategy to learn the recommendation function. Our experimental results indicate that extending the methods to include user relevance feedback leads to gains in precision of up to 58% over the best baseline in cold start scenarios and gains of up to 43% over the best baseline in objects that contain some initial tags (i.e., no cold start). We also show that our best relevance-feedback-driven strategy performs well even in scenarios that lack user cooperation (i.e., users may refuse to provide feedback) and user reliability (i.e., users may provide the wrong feedback).

0.024223946 = product of:
  0.048447892 = sum of:
    0.016646868 = product of:
      0.06658747 = sum of:
        0.06658747 = weight(_text_:based in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06658747 = score(doc=2759,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.47078028 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.031801023 = product of:
      0.063602045 = sum of:
        0.063602045 = weight(_text_:22 in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063602045 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

Source

Semantic keyword-based search on structured data sources: First COST Action IC1302 International KEYSTONE Conference, IKC 2015, Coimbra, Portugal, September 8-9, 2015. Revised Selected Papers. Eds.: J. Cardoso et al

0.023954237 = product of:
  0.09581695 = sum of:
    0.09581695 = weight(_text_:term in 1867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09581695 = score(doc=1867,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.4374403 = fieldWeight in 1867, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1867)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to survey the treatment of relationships, relationship expressions and the ways in which they manifest themselves in image descriptions. Design/methodology/approach - The term "relationship" is construed in the broadest possible way to include spatial relationships ("to the right of"), temporal ("in 1936," "at noon"), meronymic ("part of"), and attributive ("has color," "has dimension"). The intentions of these vaguely delimited categories with image information, image creation, and description in libraries and archives is complex and in need of explanation. Findings - The review brings into question many generally held beliefs about the relationship problem such as the belief that the semantics of relationships are somehow embedded in the relationship term itself and that image search and retrieval solutions can be found through refinement of word-matching systems. Originality/value - This review has no hope of systematically examining all evidence in all disciplines pertaining to this topic. It instead focusses on a general description of a theoretical treatment in Library and Information Science.

0.015586558 = product of:
  0.031173116 = sum of:
    0.0029427784 = product of:
      0.011771114 = sum of:
        0.011771114 = weight(_text_:based in 1875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011771114 = score(doc=1875,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.083222985 = fieldWeight in 1875, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1875)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.028230337 = weight(_text_:term in 1875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028230337 = score(doc=1875,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.12888208 = fieldWeight in 1875, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1875)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

In the longer term, the new research may lead to technology that helps the blind and robots navigate natural environments. But it also raises chilling possibilities for surveillance. During the past 15 years, video cameras have been placed in a vast number of public and private spaces. In the future, the software operating the cameras will not only be able to identify particular humans via facial recognition, experts say, but also identify certain types of behavior, perhaps even automatically alerting authorities. Two years ago Google researchers created image-recognition software and presented it with 10 million images taken from YouTube videos. Without human guidance, the program trained itself to recognize cats - a testament to the number of cat videos on YouTube. Current artificial intelligence programs in new cars already can identify pedestrians and bicyclists from cameras positioned atop the windshield and can stop the car automatically if the driver does not take action to avoid a collision. But "just single object recognition is not very beneficial," said Ali Farhadi, a computer scientist at the University of Washington who has published research on software that generates sentences from digital pictures. "We've focused on objects, and we've ignored verbs," he said, adding that these programs do not grasp what is going on in an image. Both the Google and Stanford groups tackled the problem by refining software programs known as neural networks, inspired by our understanding of how the brain works. Neural networks can "train" themselves to discover similarities and patterns in data, even when their human creators do not know the patterns exist.
In living organisms, webs of neurons in the brain vastly outperform even the best computer-based networks in perception and pattern recognition. But by adopting some of the same architecture, computers are catching up, learning to identify patterns in speech and imagery with increasing accuracy. The advances are apparent to consumers who use Apple's Siri personal assistant, for example, or Google's image search. Both groups of researchers employed similar approaches, weaving together two types of neural networks, one focused on recognizing images and the other on human language. In both cases the researchers trained the software with relatively small sets of digital images that had been annotated with descriptive sentences by humans. After the software programs "learned" to see patterns in the pictures and description, the researchers turned them on previously unseen images. The programs were able to identify objects and actions with roughly double the accuracy of earlier efforts, although still nowhere near human perception capabilities. "I was amazed that even with the small amount of training data that we were able to do so well," said Oriol Vinyals, a Google computer scientist who wrote the paper with Alexander Toshev, Samy Bengio and Dumitru Erhan, members of the Google Brain project. "The field is just starting, and we will see a lot of increases."

0.014115169 = product of:
  0.056460675 = sum of:
    0.056460675 = weight(_text_:term in 4005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056460675 = score(doc=4005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.25776416 = fieldWeight in 4005, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4005)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Subject indexing is an intellectually intensive process that has many inherent uncertainties. Existing manual subject indexing systems generally produce binary outcomes for whether or not to assign an indexing term. This does not sufficiently reflect the extent to which the indexing terms are associated with the documents. On the other hand, the idea of probabilistic or weighted indexing was proposed a long time ago and has seen success in capturing uncertainties in the automatic indexing process. One hurdle to overcome in implementing weighted indexing in manual subject indexing systems is the practical burden that could be added to the already intensive indexing process. This study proposes a method to infer automatically the associations between subject terms and documents through text mining. By uncovering the connections between MeSH descriptors and document text, we are able to derive the weights of MeSH descriptors manually assigned to documents. Our initial results suggest that the inference method is feasible and promising. The study has practical implications for improving subject indexing practice and providing better support for information retrieval.

0.011292135 = product of:
  0.04516854 = sum of:
    0.04516854 = weight(_text_:term in 3081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04516854 = score(doc=3081,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.20621133 = fieldWeight in 3081, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3081)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.009880973 = product of:
  0.039523892 = sum of:
    0.039523892 = product of:
      0.079047784 = sum of:
        0.079047784 = weight(_text_:assessment in 3311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079047784 = score(doc=3311,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 3311, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3311)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Tools for automatic subject assignment help deal with scale and sustainability in creating and enriching metadata, establishing more connections across and between resources and enhancing consistency. Although some software vendors and experimental researchers claim the tools can replace manual subject indexing, hard scientific evidence of their performance in operating information environments is scarce. A major reason for this is that research is usually conducted in laboratory conditions, excluding the complexities of real-life systems and situations. The article reviews and discusses issues with existing evaluation approaches such as problems of aboutness and relevance assessments, implying the need to use more than a single "gold standard" method when evaluating indexing and retrieval, and proposes a comprehensive evaluation framework. The framework is informed by a systematic review of the literature on evaluation approaches: evaluating indexing quality directly through assessment by an evaluator or through comparison with a gold standard, evaluating the quality of computer-assisted indexing directly in the context of an indexing workflow, and evaluating indexing quality indirectly through analyzing retrieval performance.

0.0095403055 = product of:
  0.038161222 = sum of:
    0.038161222 = product of:
      0.076322444 = sum of:
        0.076322444 = weight(_text_:22 in 5629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076322444 = score(doc=5629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5629, 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=5629)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.2, S.163-166

0.008714426 = product of:
  0.017428853 = sum of:
    0.0047084456 = product of:
      0.018833783 = sum of:
        0.018833783 = weight(_text_:based in 5499) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018833783 = score(doc=5499,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.13315678 = fieldWeight in 5499, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5499)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.012720408 = product of:
      0.025440816 = sum of:
        0.025440816 = weight(_text_:22 in 5499) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025440816 = score(doc=5499,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5499, 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=5499)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose Modern mathematicians and scientists of math-related disciplines often use Document Preparation Systems (DPS) to write and Computer Algebra Systems (CAS) to calculate mathematical expressions. Usually, they translate the expressions manually between DPS and CAS. This process is time-consuming and error-prone. The purpose of this paper is to automate this translation. This paper uses Maple and Mathematica as the CAS, and LaTeX as the DPS. Design/methodology/approach Bruce Miller at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) developed a collection of special LaTeX macros that create links from mathematical symbols to their definitions in the NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions (DLMF). The authors are using these macros to perform rule-based translations between the formulae in the DLMF and CAS. Moreover, the authors develop software to ease the creation of new rules and to discover inconsistencies. Findings The authors created 396 mappings and translated 58.8 percent of DLMF formulae (2,405 expressions) successfully between Maple and DLMF. For a significant percentage, the special function definitions in Maple and the DLMF were different. An atomic symbol in one system maps to a composite expression in the other system. The translator was also successfully used for automatic verification of mathematical online compendia and CAS. The evaluation techniques discovered two errors in the DLMF and one defect in Maple. Originality/value This paper introduces the first translation tool for special functions between LaTeX and CAS. The approach improves error-prone manual translations and can be used to verify mathematical online compendia and CAS.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.006360204 = product of:
  0.025440816 = sum of:
    0.025440816 = product of:
      0.05088163 = sum of:
        0.05088163 = weight(_text_:22 in 401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05088163 = score(doc=401,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 401, 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=401)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

11. 9.2012 19:43:22

0.0055651786 = product of:
  0.022260714 = sum of:
    0.022260714 = product of:
      0.04452143 = sum of:
        0.04452143 = weight(_text_:22 in 5195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04452143 = score(doc=5195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5195, 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=5195)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Große Aufmerksamkeit richtet sich im Moment auf das Potential von automatisierten Methoden in der Sacherschließung und deren Interaktionsmöglichkeiten mit intellektuellen Methoden. In diesem Kontext befasst sich der vorliegende Beitrag mit den folgenden Fragen: Was sind die Anforderungen an bibliothekarische Metadaten aus Sicht der Wissenschaft? Was wird gebraucht, um den Informationsbedarf der Fachcommunities zu bedienen? Und was bedeutet das entsprechend für die Automatisierung der Metadatenerstellung und -pflege? Dieser Beitrag fasst die von der Autorin eingenommene Position in einem Impulsvortrag und der Podiumsdiskussion beim Workshop der FAG "Erschließung und Informationsvermittlung" des GBV zusammen. Der Workshop fand im Rahmen der 22. Verbundkonferenz des GBV statt.

0.0055651786 = product of:
  0.022260714 = sum of:
    0.022260714 = product of:
      0.04452143 = sum of:
        0.04452143 = weight(_text_:22 in 5344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04452143 = score(doc=5344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5344, 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=5344)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Spätestens seit dem Deutschen Bibliothekartag 2018 hat sich die Diskussion zu den automatischen Verfahren der Inhaltserschließung der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek von einer politisch geführten Diskussion in eine Qualitätsdiskussion verwandelt. Der folgende Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit Fragen der Qualität von Inhaltserschließung in digitalen Zeiten, wo heterogene Erzeugnisse unterschiedlicher Verfahren aufeinandertreffen und versucht, wichtige Anforderungen an Qualität zu definieren. Dieser Tagungsbeitrag fasst die vom Autor als Impulse vorgetragenen Ideen beim Workshop der FAG "Erschließung und Informationsvermittlung" des GBV am 29. August 2018 in Kiel zusammen. Der Workshop fand im Rahmen der 22. Verbundkonferenz des GBV statt.

0.0047701527 = product of:
  0.019080611 = sum of:
    0.019080611 = product of:
      0.038161222 = sum of:
        0.038161222 = weight(_text_:22 in 5628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038161222 = score(doc=5628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5628, 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=5628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.6, S.465-469

0.003975128 = product of:
  0.015900511 = sum of:
    0.015900511 = product of:
      0.031801023 = sum of:
        0.031801023 = weight(_text_:22 in 3780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031801023 = score(doc=3780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3780, 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=3780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

19. 8.2017 9:24:22