Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04855399 = product of:
  0.16993895 = sum of:
    0.051972847 = weight(_text_:subject in 2300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051972847 = score(doc=2300,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.48397237 = fieldWeight in 2300, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2300)
    0.041207436 = weight(_text_:classification in 2300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041207436 = score(doc=2300,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 2300, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2300)
    0.035551235 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035551235 = score(doc=2300,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 2300, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2300)
    0.041207436 = weight(_text_:classification in 2300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041207436 = score(doc=2300,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 2300, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2300)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

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.

Source

Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro

0.047508016 = product of:
  0.16627805 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 3614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=3614,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 3614, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3614)
    0.06065571 = weight(_text_:classification in 3614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06065571 = score(doc=3614,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.63433135 = fieldWeight in 3614, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3614)
    0.0237488 = product of:
      0.0474976 = sum of:
        0.0474976 = weight(_text_:schemes in 3614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0474976 = score(doc=3614,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2956176 = fieldWeight in 3614, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3614)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.06065571 = weight(_text_:classification in 3614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06065571 = score(doc=3614,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.63433135 = fieldWeight in 3614, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3614)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

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

0.040487964 = product of:
  0.14170787 = sum of:
    0.059409913 = weight(_text_:subject in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059409913 = score(doc=718,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
    0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035193928 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

In the face of the ever-increasing document volume, libraries around the globe are more and more exploring (semi-) automated approaches to subject indexing. This helps sustain bibliographic objectives, enrich metadata, and establish more connections across documents from various collections, effectively leading to improved information retrieval and access. However, generally accepted automated approaches that are functional in operative systems are lacking. This article aims to provide an overview of basic principles used for automated subject indexing, major approaches in relation to their possible application in actual library systems, existing working examples, as well as related challenges calling for further research.

Footnote

Teil eines Themenheftes: Artificial intelligence (AI) and automated processes for subject sccess

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.8, p.702-719

0.03848849 = product of:
  0.1347097 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 1461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=1461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 1461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1461)
    0.04037488 = weight(_text_:classification in 1461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037488 = score(doc=1461,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 1461, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1461)
    0.02849856 = product of:
      0.05699712 = sum of:
        0.05699712 = weight(_text_:schemes in 1461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05699712 = score(doc=1461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.35474116 = fieldWeight in 1461, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1461)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.04037488 = weight(_text_:classification in 1461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037488 = score(doc=1461,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 1461, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1461)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

Automated subject classification has been a challenging research issue for many years now, receiving particular attention in the past decade due to rapid increase of digital documents. The most frequent approach to automated classification is machine learning. It, however, requires training documents and performs well on new documents only if these are similar enough to the former. We explore a string-matching algorithm based on a controlled vocabulary, which does not require training documents - instead it reuses the intellectual work put into creating the controlled vocabulary. Terms from the Engineering Information thesaurus and classification scheme were matched against title and abstract of engineering papers from the Compendex database. Simple string-matching was enhanced by several methods such as term weighting schemes and cut-offs, exclusion of certain terms, and en- richment of the controlled vocabulary with automatically extracted terms. The best results are 76% recall when the controlled vocabulary is enriched with new terms, and 79% precision when certain terms are excluded. Precision of individual classes is up to 98%. These results are comparable to state-of-the-art machine-learning algorithms.

0.031247824 = product of:
  0.10936738 = sum of:
    0.051972847 = weight(_text_:subject in 4379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051972847 = score(doc=4379,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.48397237 = fieldWeight in 4379, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4379)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 4379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=4379,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 4379, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4379)
    0.0237488 = product of:
      0.0474976 = sum of:
        0.0474976 = weight(_text_:schemes in 4379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0474976 = score(doc=4379,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2956176 = fieldWeight in 4379, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4379)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 4379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=4379,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 4379, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4379)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

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.

0.027185306 = product of:
  0.12686476 = sum of:
    0.056933407 = weight(_text_:subject in 134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056933407 = score(doc=134,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5301652 = fieldWeight in 134, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=134)
    0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496567 = score(doc=134,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 134, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=134)
    0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496567 = score(doc=134,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 134, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=134)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Drawing on the research of experts from the fields of computing and library science, this ground-breaking work will show you how to combine two very different approaches to classification to create more effective, user-friendly information-retrieval systems. * Provides an interdisciplinary overview of current and potential approaches to organizing information by subject * Covers both pure computer science and pure library science topics in easy-to-understand language accessible to audiences from both disciplines * Reviews technological standards for representation, storage, and retrieval of varied knowledge-organization systems and their constituent elements * Suggests a collaborative approach that will reduce duplicate efforts and make it easier to find solutions to practical problems.

Content

Organizing information by subjectKnowledge organization systems (KOSs) -- Technological standards -- Automated tools for subject information organization : selected topics -- Perspectives for the future.

LCSH

Classification
Subject headings

Subject

Classification
Subject headings

0.025019486 = product of:
  0.1167576 = sum of:
    0.036007844 = weight(_text_:subject in 5897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036007844 = score(doc=5897,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 5897, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5897)
    0.04037488 = weight(_text_:classification in 5897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037488 = score(doc=5897,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 5897, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5897)
    0.04037488 = weight(_text_:classification in 5897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037488 = score(doc=5897,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 5897, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5897)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The primary objective of this study was to identify and address problems of applying a controlled vocabulary in automated subject classification of textual Web pages, in the area of engineering. Web pages have special characteristics such as structural information, but are at the same time rather heterogeneous. The classification approach used comprises string-to-string matching between words in a term list extracted from the Ei (Engineering Information) thesaurus and classification scheme, and words in the text to be classified. Based on a sample of 70 Web pages, a number of problems with the term list are identified. Reasons for those problems are discussed and improvements proposed. Methods for implementing the improvements are also specified, suggesting further research.

0.02362478 = product of:
  0.11024897 = sum of:
    0.051972847 = weight(_text_:subject in 5268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051972847 = score(doc=5268,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.48397237 = fieldWeight in 5268, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5268)
    0.029138058 = weight(_text_:classification in 5268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029138058 = score(doc=5268,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 5268, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5268)
    0.029138058 = weight(_text_:classification in 5268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029138058 = score(doc=5268,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 5268, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5268)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

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.

0.022701254 = product of:
  0.10593919 = sum of:
    0.036007844 = weight(_text_:subject in 2234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036007844 = score(doc=2234,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 2234, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2234)
    0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 2234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496567 = score(doc=2234,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 2234, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2234)
    0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 2234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496567 = score(doc=2234,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 2234, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2234)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

This study explores the navigation behaviour of all users of a large web service, Renardus, using web log analysis. Renardus provides integrated searching and browsing access to quality-controlled web resources from major individual subject gateway services. The main navigation feature is subject browsing through the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) based on mapping of classes of resources from the distributed gateways to the DDC structure. Among the more surprising results are the hugely dominant share of browsing activities, the good use of browsing support features like the graphical fish-eye overviews, rather long and varied navigation sequences, as well as extensive hierarchical directory-style browsing through the large DDC system.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Moving beyond the presentation layer: content and context in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) System"

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 42(2006) nos.3/4, S.163-186

0.022207009 = product of:
  0.1036327 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 5600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=5600,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 5600, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5600)
    0.041207436 = weight(_text_:classification in 5600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041207436 = score(doc=5600,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 5600, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5600)
    0.041207436 = weight(_text_:classification in 5600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041207436 = score(doc=5600,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 5600, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5600)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Purpose - To provide an integrated perspective to similarities and differences between approaches to automated classification in different research communities (machine learning, information retrieval and library science), and point to problems with the approaches and automated classification as such. Design/methodology/approach - A range of works dealing with automated classification of full-text web documents are discussed. Explorations of individual approaches are given in the following sections: special features (description, differences, evaluation), application and characteristics of web pages. Findings - Provides major similarities and differences between the three approaches: document pre-processing and utilization of web-specific document characteristics is common to all the approaches; major differences are in applied algorithms, employment or not of the vector space model and of controlled vocabularies. Problems of automated classification are recognized. Research limitations/implications - The paper does not attempt to provide an exhaustive bibliography of related resources. Practical implications - As an integrated overview of approaches from different research communities with application examples, it is very useful for students in library and information science and computer science, as well as for practitioners. Researchers from one community have the information on how similar tasks are conducted in different communities. Originality/value - To the author's knowledge, no review paper on automated text classification attempted to discuss more than one community's approach from an integrated perspective.

0.019951403 = product of:
  0.093106546 = sum of:
    0.036007844 = weight(_text_:subject in 4558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036007844 = score(doc=4558,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 4558, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4558)
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 4558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=4558,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 4558, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4558)
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 4558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=4558,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 4558, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4558)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

While automated methods for information organization have been around for several decades now, exponential growth of the World Wide Web has put them into the forefront of research in different communities, within which several approaches can be identified: 1) machine learning (algorithms that allow computers to improve their performance based on learning from pre-existing data); 2) document clustering (algorithms for unsupervised document organization and automated topic extraction); and 3) string matching (algorithms that match given strings within larger text). Here the aim was to automatically organize textual documents into hierarchical structures for subject browsing. The string-matching approach was tested using a controlled vocabulary (containing pre-selected and pre-defined authorized terms, each corresponding to only one concept). The results imply that an appropriate controlled vocabulary, with a sufficient number of entry terms designating classes, could in itself be a solution for automated classification. Then, if the same controlled vocabulary had an appropriat hierarchical structure, it would at the same time provide a good browsing structure for the collection of automatically classified documents.

0.01662617 = product of:
  0.07758879 = sum of:
    0.030006537 = weight(_text_:subject in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030006537 = score(doc=2918,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
    0.023791125 = weight(_text_:classification in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023791125 = score(doc=2918,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
    0.023791125 = weight(_text_:classification in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023791125 = score(doc=2918,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential of applying the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) as an established knowledge organization system (KOS) for enhancing social tagging, with the ultimate purpose of improving subject indexing and information retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - Over 11.000 Intute metadata records in politics were used. Totally, 28 politics students were each given four tasks, in which a total of 60 resources were tagged in two different configurations, one with uncontrolled social tags only and another with uncontrolled social tags as well as suggestions from a controlled vocabulary. The controlled vocabulary was DDC comprising also mappings from the Library of Congress Subject Headings. Findings - The results demonstrate the importance of controlled vocabulary suggestions for indexing and retrieval: to help produce ideas of which tags to use, to make it easier to find focus for the tagging, to ensure consistency and to increase the number of access points in retrieval. The value and usefulness of the suggestions proved to be dependent on the quality of the suggestions, both as to conceptual relevance to the user and as to appropriateness of the terminology. Originality/value - No research has investigated the enhancement of social tagging with suggestions from the DDC, an established KOS, in a user trial, comparing social tagging only and social tagging enhanced with the suggestions. This paper is a final reflection on all aspects of the study.

0.016303156 = product of:
  0.07608139 = sum of:
    0.042435654 = weight(_text_:subject in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042435654 = score(doc=4171,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 4171, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4171)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=4171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 4171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4171)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=4171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 4171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4171)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Purpose - Traditional subject indexing and classification are considered infeasible in many digital collections. This paper seeks to investigate ways of enhancing social tagging via knowledge organization systems, with a view to improving the quality of tags for increased information discovery and retrieval performance. Design/methodology/approach - Enhanced tagging interfaces were developed for exemplar online repositories, and trials were undertaken with author and reader groups to evaluate the effectiveness of tagging augmented with control vocabulary for subject indexing of papers in online repositories. Findings - The results showed that using a knowledge organisation system to augment tagging does appear to increase the effectiveness of non-specialist users (that is, without information science training) in subject indexing. Research limitations/implications - While limited by the size and scope of the trials undertaken, these results do point to the usefulness of a mixed approach in supporting the subject indexing of online resources. Originality/value - The value of this work is as a guide to future developments in the practical support for resource indexing in online repositories.

0.013652044 = product of:
  0.095564306 = sum of:
    0.060013074 = weight(_text_:subject in 5982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060013074 = score(doc=5982,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.55884314 = fieldWeight in 5982, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5982)
    0.035551235 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035551235 = score(doc=5982,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 5982, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5982)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

0.013639772 = product of:
  0.06365227 = sum of:
    0.030006537 = weight(_text_:subject in 3311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030006537 = score(doc=3311,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 3311, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3311)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 3311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=3311,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 3311, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3311)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 3311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=3311,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 3311, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3311)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

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.

0.0027111145 = product of:
  0.0379556 = sum of:
    0.0379556 = weight(_text_:subject in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0379556 = score(doc=688,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.35344344 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Purpose The study aims to paint a representative picture of the current state of search interfaces of Swedish online museum collections, focussing on search functionalities with particular reference to subject searching, as well as the use of controlled vocabularies, with the purpose of identifying which improvements of the search interfaces are needed to ensure high-quality information retrieval for the end user. Design/methodology/approach In the first step, a set of 21 search interface criteria was identified, based on related research and current standards in the domain of cultural heritage knowledge organization. Secondly, a complete set of Swedish museums that provide online access to their collections was identified, comprising nine cross-search services and 91 individual museums' websites. These 100 websites were each evaluated against the 21 criteria, between 1 July and 31 August 2020. Findings Although many standards and guidelines are in place to ensure quality-controlled subject indexing, which in turn support information retrieval of relevant resources (as individual or full search results), the study shows that they are not broadly implemented, resulting in information retrieval failures for the end user. The study also demonstrates a strong need for the implementation of controlled vocabularies in these museums. Originality/value This study is a rare piece of research which examines subject searching in online museums; the 21 search criteria and their use in the analysis of the complete set of online collections of a country represents a considerable and unique contribution to the fields of knowledge organization and information retrieval of cultural heritage. Its particular value lies in showing how the needs of end users, many of which are documented and reflected in international standards and guidelines, should be taken into account in designing search tools for these museums; especially so in subject searching, which is the most complex and yet the most common type of search. Much effort has been invested into digitizing cultural heritage collections, but access to them is hindered by poor search functionality. This study identifies which are the most important aspects to improve.

8.7171455E-4 = product of:
  0.0122040035 = sum of:
    0.0122040035 = product of:
      0.024408007 = sum of:
        0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024408007 = score(doc=1347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

22. 8.2014 17:12:54