Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Golub, K."
  1. Golub, K.; Lykke, M.: Automated classification of web pages in hierarchical browsing (2009) 0.02
    0.015368836 = product of:
      0.07684418 = sum of:
        0.07684418 = weight(_text_:index in 3614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07684418 = score(doc=3614,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 3614, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3614)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this study is twofold: to investigate whether it is meaningful to use the Engineering Index (Ei) classification scheme for browsing, and then, if proven useful, to investigate the performance of an automated classification algorithm based on the Ei classification scheme. Design/methodology/approach - A user study was conducted in which users solved four controlled searching tasks. The users browsed the Ei classification scheme in order to examine the suitability of the classification systems for browsing. The classification algorithm was evaluated by the users who judged the correctness of the automatically assigned classes. Findings - The study showed that the Ei classification scheme is suited for browsing. Automatically assigned classes were on average partly correct, with some classes working better than others. Success of browsing showed to be correlated and dependent on classification correctness. Research limitations/implications - Further research should address problems of disparate evaluations of one and the same web page. Additional reasons behind browsing failures in the Ei classification scheme also need further investigation. Practical implications - Improvements for browsing were identified: describing class captions and/or listing their subclasses from start; allowing for searching for words from class captions with synonym search (easily provided for Ei since the classes are mapped to thesauri terms); when searching for class captions, returning the hierarchical tree expanded around the class in which caption the search term is found. The need for improvements of classification schemes was also indicated. Originality/value - A user-based evaluation of automated subject classification in the context of browsing has not been conducted before; hence the study also presents new findings concerning methodology.
    Object
    Engineering Index Classification
  2. Golub, K.; Tyrkkö, J.; Hansson, J.; Ahlström, I.: Subject indexing in humanities : a comparison between a local university repository and an international bibliographic service (2020) 0.02
    0.015368836 = product of:
      0.07684418 = sum of:
        0.07684418 = weight(_text_:index in 5982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07684418 = score(doc=5982,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 5982, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5982)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    As the humanities develop in the realm of increasingly more pronounced digital scholarship, it is important to provide quality subject access to a vast range of heterogeneous information objects in digital services. The study aims to paint a representative picture of the current state of affairs of the use of subject index terms in humanities journal articles with particular reference to the well-established subject access needs of humanities researchers, with the purpose of identifying which improvements are needed in this context. Design/methodology/approach The comparison of subject metadata on a sample of 649 peer-reviewed journal articles from across the humanities is conducted in a university repository, against Scopus, the former reflecting local and national policies and the latter being the most comprehensive international abstract and citation database of research output. Findings The study shows that established bibliographic objectives to ensure subject access for humanities journal articles are not supported in either the world's largest commercial abstract and citation database Scopus or the local repository of a public university in Sweden. The indexing policies in the two services do not seem to address the needs of humanities scholars for highly granular subject index terms with appropriate facets; no controlled vocabularies for any humanities discipline are used whatsoever. Originality/value In all, not much has changed since 1990s when indexing for the humanities was shown to lag behind the sciences. The community of researchers and information professionals, today working together on digital humanities projects, as well as interdisciplinary research teams, should demand that their subject access needs be fulfilled, especially in commercial services like Scopus and discovery services.
  3. Golub, K.: Subject access in Swedish discovery services (2018) 0.01
    0.010867408 = product of:
      0.054337036 = sum of:
        0.054337036 = weight(_text_:index in 4379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054337036 = score(doc=4379,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 4379, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4379)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    While support for subject searching has been traditionally advocated for in library catalogs, often in the form of a catalog objective to find everything that a library has on a certain topic, research has shown that subject access has not been satisfactory. Many existing online catalogs and discovery services do not seem to make good use of the intellectual effort invested into assigning controlled subject index terms and classes. For example, few support hierarchical browsing of classification schemes and other controlled vocabularies with hierarchical structures, few provide end-user-friendly options to choose a more specific concept to increase precision, a broader concept or related concepts to increase recall, to disambiguate homonyms, or to find which term is best used to name a concept. Optimum subject access in library catalogs and discovery services is analyzed from the perspective of earlier research as well as contemporary conceptual models and cataloguing codes. Eighteen proposed features of what this should entail in practice are drawn. In an exploratory qualitative study, the three most common discovery services used in Swedish academic libraries are analyzed against these features. In line with previous research, subject access in contemporary interfaces is demonstrated to less than optimal. This is in spite of the fact that individual collections have been indexed with controlled vocabularies and a significant number of controlled vocabularies have been mapped to each other and are available in interoperable standards. Strategic action is proposed to build research-informed (inter)national standards and guidelines.
  4. Golub, K.: Automatic subject indexing of text (2019) 0.01
    0.010867408 = product of:
      0.054337036 = sum of:
        0.054337036 = weight(_text_:index in 5268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054337036 = score(doc=5268,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 5268, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5268)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Automatic subject indexing addresses problems of scale and sustainability and can be at the same time used to enrich existing metadata records, establish more connections across and between resources from various metadata and resource collec-tions, and enhance consistency of the metadata. In this work, au-tomatic subject indexing focuses on assigning index terms or classes from established knowledge organization systems (KOSs) for subject indexing like thesauri, subject headings systems and classification systems. The following major approaches are dis-cussed, in terms of their similarities and differences, advantages and disadvantages for automatic assigned indexing from KOSs: "text categorization," "document clustering," and "document classification." Text categorization is perhaps the most wide-spread, machine-learning approach with what seems generally good reported performance. Document clustering automatically both creates groups of related documents and extracts names of subjects depicting the group at hand. Document classification re-uses the intellectual effort invested into creating a KOS for sub-ject indexing and even simple string-matching algorithms have been reported to achieve good results, because one concept can be described using a number of different terms, including equiv-alent, related, narrower and broader terms. Finally, applicability of automatic subject indexing to operative information systems and challenges of evaluation are outlined, suggesting the need for more research.
  5. Golub, K.; Tudhope, D.; Zeng, M.L.; Zumer, M.: Terminology registries for knowledge organization systems : functionality, use, and attributes (2014) 0.01
    0.008374932 = product of:
      0.04187466 = sum of:
        0.04187466 = weight(_text_:22 in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04187466 = score(doc=1347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1347, 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=1347)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:12:54