-
Golub, K.; Soergel, D.; Buchanan, G.; Tudhope, D.; Lykke, M.; Hiom, D.: ¬A framework for evaluating automatic indexing or classification in the context of retrieval (2016)
0.10
0.09524199 = product of:
0.14286299 = sum of:
0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08966068 = score(doc=3311,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 3311, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3311)
0.053202312 = product of:
0.106404625 = sum of:
0.106404625 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.106404625 = score(doc=3311,freq=14.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.55947536 = fieldWeight in 3311, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3311)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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.
-
Zhu, W.Z.; Allen, R.B.: Document clustering using the LSI subspace signature model (2013)
0.04
0.041326456 = product of:
0.12397936 = sum of:
0.12397936 = sum of:
0.083589815 = weight(_text_:indexing in 690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.083589815 = score(doc=690,freq=6.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = 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)
0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04038954 = score(doc=690,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
-
Qu, B.; Cong, G.; Li, C.; Sun, A.; Chen, H.: ¬An evaluation of classification models for question topic categorization (2012)
0.03
0.029886894 = product of:
0.08966068 = sum of:
0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08966068 = score(doc=237,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 237, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=237)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- We study the problem of question topic classification using a very large real-world Community Question Answering (CQA) dataset from Yahoo! Answers. The dataset comprises 3.9 million questions and these questions are organized into more than 1,000 categories in a hierarchy. To the best knowledge, this is the first systematic evaluation of the performance of different classification methods on question topic classification as well as short texts. Specifically, we empirically evaluate the following in classifying questions into CQA categories: (a) the usefulness of n-gram features and bag-of-word features; (b) the performance of three standard classification algorithms (naive Bayes, maximum entropy, and support vector machines); (c) the performance of the state-of-the-art hierarchical classification algorithms; (d) the effect of training data size on performance; and (e) the effectiveness of the different components of CQA data, including subject, content, asker, and the best answer. The experimental results show what aspects are important for question topic classification in terms of both effectiveness and efficiency. We believe that the experimental findings from this study will be useful in real-world classification problems.
-
Sojka, P.; Lee, M.; Rehurek, R.; Hatlapatka, R.; Kucbel, M.; Bouche, T.; Goutorbe, C.; Anghelache, R.; Wojciechowski, K.: Toolset for entity and semantic associations : Final Release (2013)
0.01
0.011375135 = product of:
0.034125403 = sum of:
0.034125403 = product of:
0.068250805 = sum of:
0.068250805 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.068250805 = score(doc=1057,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.3588626 = fieldWeight in 1057, 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=1057)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- In this document we describe the final release of the toolset for entity and semantic associations, integrating two versions (language dependent and language independent) of Unsupervised Document Similarity implemented by MU (using gensim tool) and Citation Indexing, Resolution and Matching (UJF/CMD). We give a brief description of tools, the rationale behind decisions made, and provide elementary evaluation. Tools are integrated in the main project result, EuDML website, and they deliver the needed functionality for exploratory searching and browsing the collected documents. EuDML users and content providers thus benefit from millions of algorithmically generated similarity and citation links, developed using state of the art machine learning and matching methods.
- Object
- Latent Semantic Indexing
-
HaCohen-Kerner, Y. et al.: Classification using various machine learning methods and combinations of key-phrases and visual features (2016)
0.01
0.011219318 = product of:
0.033657953 = sum of:
0.033657953 = product of:
0.06731591 = sum of:
0.06731591 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06731591 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 1. 2.2016 18:25:22
-
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)
0.01
0.009479279 = product of:
0.028437834 = sum of:
0.028437834 = product of:
0.05687567 = sum of:
0.05687567 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05687567 = score(doc=2300,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.29905218 = fieldWeight in 2300, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2300)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Subject terms play a crucial role in resource discovery but require substantial effort to produce. Automatic subject classification and indexing address problems of scale and sustainability and can be used to enrich existing bibliographic records, establish more connections across and between resources and enhance consistency of bibliographic data. The paper aims to put forward a complex methodological framework to evaluate automatic classification tools of Swedish textual documents based on the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) recently introduced to Swedish libraries. Three major complementary approaches are suggested: a quality-built gold standard, retrieval effects, domain analysis. The gold standard is built based on input from at least two catalogue librarians, end-users expert in the subject, end users inexperienced in the subject and automated tools. Retrieval effects are studied through a combination of assigned and free tasks, including factual and comprehensive types. The study also takes into consideration the different role and character of subject terms in various knowledge domains, such as scientific disciplines. As a theoretical framework, domain analysis is used and applied in relation to the implementation of DDC in Swedish libraries and chosen domains of knowledge within the DDC itself.
-
Smiraglia, R.P.; Cai, X.: Tracking the evolution of clustering, machine learning, automatic indexing and automatic classification in knowledge organization (2017)
0.01
0.009479279 = product of:
0.028437834 = sum of:
0.028437834 = product of:
0.05687567 = sum of:
0.05687567 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05687567 = score(doc=3627,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.29905218 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- A very important extension of the traditional domain of knowledge organization (KO) arises from attempts to incorporate techniques devised in the computer science domain for automatic concept extraction and for grouping, categorizing, clustering and otherwise organizing knowledge using mechanical means. Four specific terms have emerged to identify the most prevalent techniques: machine learning, clustering, automatic indexing, and automatic classification. Our study presents three domain analytical case analyses in search of answers. The first case relies on citations located using the ISKO-supported "Knowledge Organization Bibliography." The second case relies on works in both Web of Science and SCOPUS. Case three applies co-word analysis and citation analysis to the contents of the papers in the present special issue. We observe scholars involved in "clustering" and "automatic classification" who share common thematic emphases. But we have found no coherence, no common activity and no social semantics. We have not found a research front, or a common teleology within the KO domain. We also have found a lively group of authors who have succeeded in submitting papers to this special issue, and their work quite interestingly aligns with the case studies we report. There is an emphasis on KO for information retrieval; there is much work on clustering (which involves conceptual points within texts) and automatic classification (which involves semantic groupings at the meta-document level).
-
Egbert, J.; Biber, D.; Davies, M.: Developing a bottom-up, user-based method of web register classification (2015)
0.01
0.0067315903 = product of:
0.02019477 = sum of:
0.02019477 = product of:
0.04038954 = sum of:
0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 2158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04038954 = score(doc=2158,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 4. 8.2015 19:22:04
-
AlQenaei, Z.M.; Monarchi, D.E.: ¬The use of learning techniques to analyze the results of a manual classification system (2016)
0.01
0.0067028617 = product of:
0.020108584 = sum of:
0.020108584 = product of:
0.04021717 = sum of:
0.04021717 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2836) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04021717 = score(doc=2836,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 2836, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2836)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Classification is the process of assigning objects to pre-defined classes based on observations or characteristics of those objects, and there are many approaches to performing this task. The overall objective of this study is to demonstrate the use of two learning techniques to analyze the results of a manual classification system. Our sample consisted of 1,026 documents, from the ACM Computing Classification System, classified by their authors as belonging to one of the groups of the classification system: "H.3 Information Storage and Retrieval." A singular value decomposition of the documents' weighted term-frequency matrix was used to represent each document in a 50-dimensional vector space. The analysis of the representation using both supervised (decision tree) and unsupervised (clustering) techniques suggests that two pairs of the ACM classes are closely related to each other in the vector space. Class 1 (Content Analysis and Indexing) is closely related to Class 3 (Information Search and Retrieval), and Class 4 (Systems and Software) is closely related to Class 5 (Online Information Services). Further analysis was performed to test the diffusion of the words in the two classes using both cosine and Euclidean distance.
-
Liu, R.-L.: ¬A passage extractor for classification of disease aspect information (2013)
0.01
0.005609659 = product of:
0.016828977 = sum of:
0.016828977 = product of:
0.033657953 = sum of:
0.033657953 = weight(_text_:22 in 1107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033657953 = score(doc=1107,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1107, 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=1107)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 28.10.2013 19:22:57
