-
Sparck Jones, K.: Automatic classification (1976)
0.02
0.021751886 = product of:
0.1522632 = sum of:
0.0761316 = weight(_text_:classification in 2908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0761316 = score(doc=2908,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.7961767 = fieldWeight in 2908, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2908)
0.0761316 = weight(_text_:classification in 2908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0761316 = score(doc=2908,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.7961767 = fieldWeight in 2908, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2908)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Source
- Classification in the 1970s: a second look. Rev. ed. Ed.: A. Maltby
-
Sparck Jones, K.: Automatic keyword classification for information retrieval (1971)
0.02
0.019226132 = product of:
0.13458292 = sum of:
0.06729146 = weight(_text_:classification in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06729146 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.70372736 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
0.06729146 = weight(_text_:classification in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06729146 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.70372736 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
-
Sparck Jones, K.: Some thoughts on classification for retrieval (2005)
0.02
0.01665032 = product of:
0.11655223 = sum of:
0.058276117 = weight(_text_:classification in 4392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058276117 = score(doc=4392,freq=24.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.6094458 = fieldWeight in 4392, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4392)
0.058276117 = weight(_text_:classification in 4392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058276117 = score(doc=4392,freq=24.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.6094458 = fieldWeight in 4392, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4392)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This paper was originally published in 1970 (Journal of documentation. 26(1970), S.89-101), considered the suggestion that classifications for retrieval should be constructed automatically and raised some serious problems concerning the sorts of classification which were required, and the way in which formal classification theories should be exploited, given that a retrieval classification is required for a purpose. These difficulties had not been sufficiently considered, and the paper, therefore, aims to attempt an analysis of them, though no solutions of immediate application could be suggested. Design/methodology/approach - Starting with the illustrative proposition that a polythetic, multiple, unordered classification is required in automatic thesaurus construction, this is considered in the context of classification in general, where eight sorts of classification can be distinguished, each covering a range of class definitions and class-finding algorithms. Findings - Since there is generally no natural or best classification of a set of objects as such, the evaluation of alternative classifications requires either formal criteria of goodness of fit, or, if a classification is required for a purpose, a precise statement of that purpose. In any case a substantive theory of classification is needed, which does not exist; and, since sufficiently precise specifications of retrieval requirements are also lacking, the only currently available approach to automatic classification experiments for information retrieval is to do enough of them. Originality/value - Gives insights into the classification of material for information retrieval.
-
Sparck Jones, K.: Revisiting classification for retrieval (2005)
0.02
0.016482975 = product of:
0.115380816 = sum of:
0.057690408 = weight(_text_:classification in 4328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057690408 = score(doc=4328,freq=12.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.60332054 = fieldWeight in 4328, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4328)
0.057690408 = weight(_text_:classification in 4328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057690408 = score(doc=4328,freq=12.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.60332054 = fieldWeight in 4328, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4328)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This short note seeks to respond to Hjørland and Pederson's paper "A substantive theory of classification for information retrieval" which starts from Sparck Jones's, "Some thoughts on classification for retrieval", originally published in 1970. Design/methodology/approach - The note comments on the context in which the 1970 paper was written, and on Hjørland and Pedersen's views, emphasising the need for well-grounded classification theory and application. Findings - The note maintains that text-based, a posteriori, classification, as increasingly found in applications, is likely to be more useful, in general, than a priori classification. Originality/value - The note elaborates on points made in a well-received earlier paper.
-
Sparck Jones, K.: Some thoughts on classification for retrieval (1970)
0.02
0.015941469 = product of:
0.11159027 = sum of:
0.055795137 = weight(_text_:classification in 4327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055795137 = score(doc=4327,freq=22.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.58349997 = fieldWeight in 4327, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4327)
0.055795137 = weight(_text_:classification in 4327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055795137 = score(doc=4327,freq=22.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.58349997 = fieldWeight in 4327, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4327)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- The suggestion that classifications for retrieval should be constructed automatically raises some serious problems concerning the sorts of classification which are required, and the way in which formal classification theories should be exploited, given that a retrieval classification is required for a purpose. These difficulties have not been sufficiently considered, and the paper therefore attempts an analysis of them, though no solution of immediate application can be suggested. Starting with the illustrative proposition that a polythetic, multiple, unordered classification is required in automatic thesaurus construction, this is considered in the context of classification in general, where eight sorts of classification can be distinguished, each covering a range of class definitions and class-finding algorithms. The problem which follows is that since there is generally no natural or best classification of a set of objects as such, the evaluation of alternative classifications requires either formal criteria of goodness of fit, or, if a classification is required for a purpose, a precises statement of that purpose. In any case a substantive theory of classification is needed, which does not exist; and since sufficiently precise specifications of retrieval requirements are also lacking, the only currently available approach to automatic classification experiments for information retrieval is to do enough of them
-
Needham, R.M.; Sparck Jones, K.: Keywords and clumps (1985)
0.02
0.015786104 = product of:
0.07366848 = sum of:
0.021004576 = weight(_text_:subject in 3645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021004576 = score(doc=3645,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.1955951 = fieldWeight in 3645, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3645)
0.02633195 = weight(_text_:classification in 3645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02633195 = score(doc=3645,freq=10.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.27537692 = fieldWeight in 3645, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3645)
0.02633195 = weight(_text_:classification in 3645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02633195 = score(doc=3645,freq=10.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.27537692 = fieldWeight in 3645, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3645)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- The selection that follows was chosen as it represents "a very early paper an the possibilities allowed by computers an documentation." In the early 1960s computers were being used to provide simple automatic indexing systems wherein keywords were extracted from documents. The problem with such systems was that they lacked vocabulary control, thus documents related in subject matter were not always collocated in retrieval. To improve retrieval by improving recall is the raison d'être of vocabulary control tools such as classifications and thesauri. The question arose whether it was possible by automatic means to construct classes of terms, which when substituted, one for another, could be used to improve retrieval performance? One of the first theoretical approaches to this question was initiated by R. M. Needham and Karen Sparck Jones at the Cambridge Language Research Institute in England.t The question was later pursued using experimental methodologies by Sparck Jones, who, as a Senior Research Associate in the Computer Laboratory at the University of Cambridge, has devoted her life's work to research in information retrieval and automatic naturai language processing. Based an the principles of numerical taxonomy, automatic classification techniques start from the premise that two objects are similar to the degree that they share attributes in common. When these two objects are keywords, their similarity is measured in terms of the number of documents they index in common. Step 1 in automatic classification is to compute mathematically the degree to which two terms are similar. Step 2 is to group together those terms that are "most similar" to each other, forming equivalence classes of intersubstitutable terms. The technique for forming such classes varies and is the factor that characteristically distinguishes different approaches to automatic classification. The technique used by Needham and Sparck Jones, that of clumping, is described in the selection that follows. Questions that must be asked are whether the use of automatically generated classes really does improve retrieval performance and whether there is a true eco nomic advantage in substituting mechanical for manual labor. Several years after her work with clumping, Sparck Jones was to observe that while it was not wholly satisfactory in itself, it was valuable in that it stimulated research into automatic classification. To this it might be added that it was valuable in that it introduced to libraryl information science the methods of numerical taxonomy, thus stimulating us to think again about the fundamental nature and purpose of classification. In this connection it might be useful to review how automatically derived classes differ from those of manually constructed classifications: 1) the manner of their derivation is purely a posteriori, the ultimate operationalization of the principle of literary warrant; 2) the relationship between members forming such classes is essentially statistical; the members of a given class are similar to each other not because they possess the class-defining characteristic but by virtue of sharing a family resemblance; and finally, 3) automatically derived classes are not related meaningfully one to another, that is, they are not ordered in traditional hierarchical and precedence relationships.
- Source
- Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al
-
Sparck Jones, K.; Jackson, D.M.: ¬The use of automatically obtained keyword classification for information retrieval (1970)
0.02
0.015380906 = product of:
0.107666336 = sum of:
0.053833168 = weight(_text_:classification in 5177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053833168 = score(doc=5177,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5629819 = fieldWeight in 5177, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5177)
0.053833168 = weight(_text_:classification in 5177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053833168 = score(doc=5177,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5629819 = fieldWeight in 5177, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5177)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
-
Lewis, D.D.; Sparck Jones, K.: Natural language processing for information retrieval (1997)
0.01
0.013320256 = product of:
0.09324179 = sum of:
0.046620894 = weight(_text_:classification in 575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046620894 = score(doc=575,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.48755667 = fieldWeight in 575, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=575)
0.046620894 = weight(_text_:classification in 575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046620894 = score(doc=575,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.48755667 = fieldWeight in 575, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=575)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Source
- From classification to 'knowledge organization': Dorking revisited or 'past is prelude'. A collection of reprints to commemorate the firty year span between the Dorking Conference (First International Study Conference on Classification Research 1957) and the Sixth International Study Conference on Classification Research (London 1997). Ed.: A. Gilchrist
-
Sparck Jones, K.: Reflections on TREC (1997)
0.01
0.009990192 = product of:
0.06993134 = sum of:
0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03496567 = score(doc=580,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 580, 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=580)
0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03496567 = score(doc=580,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 580, 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=580)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Source
- From classification to 'knowledge organization': Dorking revisited or 'past is prelude'. A collection of reprints to commemorate the firty year span between the Dorking Conference (First International Study Conference on Classification Research 1957) and the Sixth International Study Conference on Classification Research (London 1997). Ed.: A. Gilchrist
-
Sparck Jones, K.: Synonymy and semantic classification (1986)
0.01
0.009613066 = product of:
0.06729146 = sum of:
0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 1304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03364573 = score(doc=1304,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 1304, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1304)
0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 1304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03364573 = score(doc=1304,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 1304, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1304)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
-
Robertson, S.E.; Sparck Jones, K.: Simple, proven approaches to text retrieval (1997)
0.00
0.003560864 = product of:
0.04985209 = sum of:
0.04985209 = product of:
0.09970418 = sum of:
0.09970418 = weight(_text_:texts in 4532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09970418 = score(doc=4532,freq=8.0), product of:
0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.605712 = fieldWeight in 4532, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4532)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- This technical note describes straightforward techniques for document indexing and retrieval that have been solidly established through extensive testing and are easy to apply. They are useful for many different types of text material, are viable for very large files, and have the advantage that they do not require special skills or training for searching, but are easy for end users. The document and text retrieval methods described here have a sound theoretical basis, are well established by extensive testing, and the ideas involved are now implemented in some commercial retrieval systems. Testing in the last few years has, in particular, shown that the methods presented here work very well with full texts, not only title and abstracts, and with large files of texts containing three quarters of a million documents. These tests, the TREC Tests (see Harman 1993 - 1997; IP&M 1995), have been rigorous comparative evaluations involving many different approaches to information retrieval. These techniques depend an the use of simple terms for indexing both request and document texts; an term weighting exploiting statistical information about term occurrences; an scoring for request-document matching, using these weights, to obtain a ranked search output; and an relevance feedback to modify request weights or term sets in iterative searching. The normal implementation is via an inverted file organisation using a term list with linked document identifiers, plus counting data, and pointers to the actual texts. The user's request can be a word list, phrases, sentences or extended text.
-
Sparck Jones, K.; Galliers, J.R.: Evaluating natural language processing systems : an analysis and review (1996)
0.00
0.0018186709 = product of:
0.02546139 = sum of:
0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 2934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02546139 = score(doc=2934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 2934, 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=2934)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- This comprehensive state-of-the-art book is the first devoted to the important and timely issue of evaluating NLP systems. It addresses the whole area of NLP system evaluation, including aims and scope, problems and methodology. The authors provide a wide-ranging and careful analysis of evaluation concepts, reinforced with extensive illustrations; they relate systems to their environments and develop a framework for proper evaluation. The discussion of principles is completed by a detailed review of practice and strategies in the field, covering both systems for specific tasks, like translation, and core language processors. The methodology lessons drawn from the analysis and review are applied in a series of example cases. A comprehensive bibliography, a subject index, and term glossary are included
