Search (40 results, page 1 of 2)

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

0.04728191 = product of:
  0.16548668 = sum of:
    0.053410944 = weight(_text_:classification in 1071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053410944 = score(doc=1071,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.55856633 = fieldWeight in 1071, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1071)
    0.02849856 = product of:
      0.05699712 = sum of:
        0.05699712 = weight(_text_:schemes in 1071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05699712 = score(doc=1071,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.35474116 = fieldWeight in 1071, 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=1071)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.030166224 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030166224 = score(doc=1071,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 1071, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1071)
    0.053410944 = weight(_text_:classification in 1071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053410944 = score(doc=1071,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.55856633 = fieldWeight in 1071, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1071)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

This paper aims to provide an overview of automatic classification research, which focuses on issues related to the automatic classification of documents in a library environment. The review covers literature published in mainstream library and information science studies. The review was done on literature published in both academic and professional LIS journals and other documents. This review reveals that basically three types of research are being done on automatic classification: 1) hierarchical classification using different library classification schemes, 2) text categorization and document categorization using different type of classifiers with or without using training documents, and 3) automatic bibliographic classification. Predominantly this research is directed towards solving problems of organization of digital documents in an online environment. However, very little research is devoted towards solving the problems of arrangement of physical documents.

0.040373825 = product of:
  0.14130838 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=237,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 237, 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=237)
    0.04758225 = weight(_text_:classification in 237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04758225 = score(doc=237,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.49761042 = fieldWeight in 237, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=237)
    0.04758225 = weight(_text_:classification in 237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04758225 = score(doc=237,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.49761042 = fieldWeight in 237, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=237)
    0.024926046 = product of:
      0.04985209 = sum of:
        0.04985209 = weight(_text_:texts in 237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04985209 = score(doc=237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.302856 = fieldWeight in 237, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=237)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

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.

0.036394715 = product of:
  0.1273815 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 3121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=3121,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 3121, 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=3121)
    0.041207436 = weight(_text_:classification in 3121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041207436 = score(doc=3121,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 3121, 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=3121)
    0.0237488 = product of:
      0.0474976 = sum of:
        0.0474976 = weight(_text_:schemes in 3121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0474976 = score(doc=3121,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2956176 = fieldWeight in 3121, 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=3121)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.041207436 = weight(_text_:classification in 3121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041207436 = score(doc=3121,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 3121, 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=3121)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

The delineation of coordinates is fundamental for the cartography of science, and accurate and credible classification of scientific knowledge presents a persistent challenge in this regard. We present a map of Finnish science based on unsupervised-learning classification, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this approach vis-à-vis those generated by human reasoning. We conclude that from theoretical and practical perspectives there exist several challenges for human reasoning-based classification frameworks of scientific knowledge, as they typically try to fit new-to-the-world knowledge into historical models of scientific knowledge, and cannot easily be deployed for new large-scale data sets. Automated classification schemes, in contrast, generate classification models only from the available text corpus, thereby identifying credibly novel bodies of knowledge. They also lend themselves to versatile large-scale data analysis, and enable a range of Big Data possibilities. However, we also argue that it is neither possible nor fruitful to declare one or another method a superior approach in terms of realism to classify scientific knowledge, and we believe that the merits of each approach are dependent on the practical objectives of analysis.

0.033885635 = product of:
  0.15813297 = sum of:
    0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 1107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03364573 = score(doc=1107,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 1107, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1107)
    0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 1107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03364573 = score(doc=1107,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 1107, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1107)
    0.09084152 = sum of:
      0.07050151 = weight(_text_:texts in 1107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07050151 = score(doc=1107,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03002521 = queryNorm
          0.42830306 = fieldWeight in 1107, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1107)
      0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 1107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020340007 = score(doc=1107,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03002521 = 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)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Retrieval of disease information is often based on several key aspects such as etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and symptoms of diseases. Automatic identification of disease aspect information is thus essential. In this article, I model the aspect identification problem as a text classification (TC) problem in which a disease aspect corresponds to a category. The disease aspect classification problem poses two challenges to classifiers: (a) a medical text often contains information about multiple aspects of a disease and hence produces noise for the classifiers and (b) text classifiers often cannot extract the textual parts (i.e., passages) about the categories of interest. I thus develop a technique, PETC (Passage Extractor for Text Classification), that extracts passages (from medical texts) for the underlying text classifiers to classify. Case studies on thousands of Chinese and English medical texts show that PETC enhances a support vector machine (SVM) classifier in classifying disease aspect information. PETC also performs better than three state-of-the-art classifier enhancement techniques, including two passage extraction techniques for text classifiers and a technique that employs term proximity information to enhance text classifiers. The contribution is of significance to evidence-based medicine, health education, and healthcare decision support. PETC can be used in those application domains in which a text to be classified may have several parts about different categories.

Date

28.10.2013 19:22:57

0.033034686 = product of:
  0.15416187 = sum of:
    0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 2158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496567 = score(doc=2158,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 2158, 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=2158)
    0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 2158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496567 = score(doc=2158,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 2158, 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=2158)
    0.08423052 = sum of:
      0.059822515 = weight(_text_:texts in 2158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059822515 = score(doc=2158,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03002521 = queryNorm
          0.36342722 = fieldWeight in 2158, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2158)
      0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 2158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024408007 = score(doc=2158,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03002521 = 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)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

This paper introduces a project to develop a reliable, cost-effective method for classifying Internet texts into register categories, and apply that approach to the analysis of a large corpus of web documents. To date, the project has proceeded in 2 key phases. First, we developed a bottom-up method for web register classification, asking end users of the web to utilize a decision-tree survey to code relevant situational characteristics of web documents, resulting in a bottom-up identification of register and subregister categories. We present details regarding the development and testing of this method through a series of 10 pilot studies. Then, in the second phase of our project we applied this procedure to a corpus of 53,000 web documents. An analysis of the results demonstrates the effectiveness of these methods for web register classification and provides a preliminary description of the types and distribution of registers on the web.

Date

4. 8.2015 19:22:04

0.025535407 = product of:
  0.11916523 = sum of:
    0.03675035 = weight(_text_:subject in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03675035 = score(doc=472,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
    0.041207436 = weight(_text_:classification in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041207436 = score(doc=472,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 472, 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=472)
    0.041207436 = weight(_text_:classification in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041207436 = score(doc=472,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 472, 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=472)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The following paper deals with an automatic text classification method which does not require training documents. For this method the German Subject Heading Authority File (SWD), provided by the linked data service of the German National Library is used. Recently the SWD was enriched with notations of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). In consequence it became possible to utilize the subject headings as textual representations for the notations of the DDC. Basically, we we derive the classification of a text from the classification of the words in the text given by the thesaurus. The method was tested by classifying 3826 OAI-Records from 7 different repositories. Mean reciprocal rank and recall were chosen as evaluation measure. Direct comparison to a machine learning method has shown that this method is definitely competitive. Thus we can conclude that the enriched version of the SWD provides high quality information with a broad coverage for classification of German scientific articles.

0.024449104 = product of:
  0.11409582 = sum of:
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=2339,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 2339, 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=2339)
    0.05699712 = product of:
      0.11399424 = sum of:
        0.11399424 = weight(_text_:schemes in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11399424 = score(doc=2339,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.7094823 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=2339,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 2339, 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=2339)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Text classification (TC) is a core technique for text mining and information retrieval. It has been applied to many applications in many different research and industrial areas. Term-weighting schemes assign an appropriate weight to each term to obtain a high TC performance. Although term weighting is one of the important modules for TC and TC has different peculiarities from those in information retrieval, many term-weighting schemes used in information retrieval, such as term frequency-inverse document frequency (tf-idf), have been used in TC in the same manner. The peculiarity of TC that differs most from information retrieval is the existence of class information. This article proposes a new term-weighting scheme that uses class information using positive and negative class distributions. As a result, the proposed scheme, log tf-TRR, consistently performs better than do other schemes using class information as well as traditional schemes such as tf-idf.

0.021299915 = product of:
  0.099399604 = sum of:
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 1041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=1041,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 1041, 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=1041)
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 1041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=1041,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 1041, 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=1041)
    0.042300906 = product of:
      0.08460181 = sum of:
        0.08460181 = weight(_text_:texts in 1041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08460181 = score(doc=1041,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.5139637 = fieldWeight in 1041, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1041)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Recent studies of authorship attribution have used machine-learning methods including regularized multinomial logistic regression, neural nets, support vector machines, and the nearest shrunken centroid classifier to identify likely authors of disputed texts. These methods are all limited by an inability to perform open-set classification and account for text and corpus size. We propose a customized Bayesian logit-normal-beta-binomial classification model for supervised authorship attribution. The model is based on the beta-binomial distribution with an explicit inverse relationship between extra-binomial variation and text size. The model internally estimates the relationship of extra-binomial variation to text size, and uses Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) to produce distributions of posterior authorship probabilities instead of point estimates. We illustrate the method by training the machine-learning methods as well as the open-set Bayesian classifier on undisputed papers of The Federalist, and testing the method on documents historically attributed to Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. The Bayesian classifier was the best classifier of these texts.

0.020069744 = product of:
  0.093658805 = sum of:
    0.060013074 = weight(_text_:subject in 2194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060013074 = score(doc=2194,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.55884314 = fieldWeight in 2194, 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=2194)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 2194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=2194,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2194, 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=2194)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 2194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=2194,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2194, 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=2194)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

In the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database, the subject categories of a journal are applied to all articles in the journal. However, many articles in multidisciplinary Sciences journals may only be represented by a small number of subject categories. To provide more accurate information on the research areas of articles in such journals, we can classify articles in these journals into subject categories as defined by Web of Science based on their references. For an article in a multidisciplinary sciences journal, the method counts the subject categories in all of the article's references indexed by Web of Science, and uses the most numerous subject categories of the references to determine the most appropriate classification of the article. We used articles in an issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) to validate the correctness of the method by comparing the obtained results with the categories of the articles as defined by PNAS and their content. This study shows that the method provides more precise search results for the subject category of interest in bibliometric investigations through recognition of articles in multidisciplinary sciences journals whose work relates to a particular subject category.

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.

0.019760894 = product of:
  0.092217505 = sum of:
    0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03364573 = score(doc=3627,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
    0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03364573 = score(doc=3627,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
    0.024926046 = product of:
      0.04985209 = sum of:
        0.04985209 = weight(_text_:texts in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04985209 = score(doc=3627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.302856 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

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).

0.018966276 = product of:
  0.08850929 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 5041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=5041,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 5041, 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=5041)
    0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 5041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03364573 = score(doc=5041,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 5041, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5041)
    0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 5041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03364573 = score(doc=5041,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 5041, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5041)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Students use general web search engines as their primary source of research while trying to find answers to school-related questions. Although search engines are highly relevant for the general population, they may return results that are out of educational context. Another rising trend; social community question answering websites are the second choice for students who try to get answers from other peers online. We attempt discovering possible improvements in educational search by leveraging both of these information sources. For this purpose, we first implement a classifier for educational questions. This classifier is built by an ensemble method that employs several regular learning algorithms and retrieval based approaches that utilize external resources. We also build a query expander to facilitate classification. We further improve the classification using search engine results and obtain 83.5% accuracy. Although our work is entirely based on the Turkish language, the features could easily be mapped to other languages as well. In order to find out whether search engine ranking can be improved in the education domain using the classification model, we collect and label a set of query results retrieved from a general web search engine. We propose five ad-hoc methods to improve search ranking based on the idea that the query-document category relation is an indicator of relevance. We evaluate these methods for overall performance, varying query length and based on factoid and non-factoid queries. We show that some of the methods significantly improve the rankings in the education domain.

0.018778171 = product of:
  0.087631464 = sum of:
    0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03364573 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 2748, 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=2748)
    0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03364573 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 2748, 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=2748)
    0.020340007 = product of:
      0.040680014 = sum of:
        0.040680014 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040680014 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

0.017829034 = product of:
  0.08320216 = sum of:
    0.029138058 = weight(_text_:classification in 2161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029138058 = score(doc=2161,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 2161, 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=2161)
    0.029138058 = weight(_text_:classification in 2161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029138058 = score(doc=2161,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 2161, 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=2161)
    0.024926046 = product of:
      0.04985209 = sum of:
        0.04985209 = weight(_text_:texts in 2161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04985209 = score(doc=2161,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.302856 = fieldWeight in 2161, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2161)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Millions of micro texts are published every day on Twitter. Identifying the sentiment present in them can be helpful for measuring the frame of mind of the public, their satisfaction with respect to a product, or their support of a social event. In this context, polarity classification is a subfield of sentiment analysis focused on determining whether the content of a text is objective or subjective, and in the latter case, if it conveys a positive or a negative opinion. Most polarity detection techniques tend to take into account individual terms in the text and even some degree of linguistic knowledge, but they do not usually consider syntactic relations between words. This article explores how relating lexical, syntactic, and psychometric information can be helpful to perform polarity classification on Spanish tweets. We provide an evaluation for both shallow and deep linguistic perspectives. Empirical results show an improved performance of syntactic approaches over pure lexical models when using large training sets to create a classifier, but this tendency is reversed when small training collections are used.

0.015061316 = product of:
  0.07028614 = sum of:
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 3015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=3015,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 3015, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3015)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 3015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=3015,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 3015, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3015)
    0.029911257 = product of:
      0.059822515 = sum of:
        0.059822515 = weight(_text_:texts in 3015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059822515 = score(doc=3015,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.36342722 = fieldWeight in 3015, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3015)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

We analyze the linguistic evolution of selected scientific disciplines over a 30-year time span (1970s to 2000s). Our focus is on four highly specialized disciplines at the boundaries of computer science that emerged during that time: computational linguistics, bioinformatics, digital construction, and microelectronics. Our analysis is driven by the question whether these disciplines develop a distinctive language use-both individually and collectively-over the given time period. The data set is the English Scientific Text Corpus (scitex), which includes texts from the 1970s/1980s and early 2000s. Our theoretical basis is register theory. In terms of methods, we combine corpus-based methods of feature extraction (various aggregated features [part-of-speech based], n-grams, lexico-grammatical patterns) and automatic text classification. The results of our research are directly relevant to the study of linguistic variation and languages for specific purposes (LSP) and have implications for various natural language processing (NLP) tasks, for example, authorship attribution, text mining, or training NLP tools.

0.01438752 = product of:
  0.100712635 = sum of:
    0.050356317 = weight(_text_:classification in 5051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050356317 = score(doc=5051,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.52662134 = fieldWeight in 5051, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5051)
    0.050356317 = weight(_text_:classification in 5051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050356317 = score(doc=5051,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.52662134 = fieldWeight in 5051, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5051)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Automatic text classification is the task of organizing documents into pre-determined classes, generally using machine learning algorithms. Generally speaking, it is one of the most important methods to organize and make use of the gigantic amounts of information that exist in unstructured textual format. Text classification is a widely studied research area of language processing and text mining. In traditional text classification, a document is represented as a bag of words where the words in other words terms are cut from their finer context i.e. their location in a sentence or in a document. Only the broader context of document is used with some type of term frequency information in the vector space. Consequently, semantics of words that can be inferred from the finer context of its location in a sentence and its relations with neighboring words are usually ignored. However, meaning of words, semantic connections between words, documents and even classes are obviously important since methods that capture semantics generally reach better classification performances. Several surveys have been published to analyze diverse approaches for the traditional text classification methods. Most of these surveys cover application of different semantic term relatedness methods in text classification up to a certain degree. However, they do not specifically target semantic text classification algorithms and their advantages over the traditional text classification. In order to fill this gap, we undertake a comprehensive discussion of semantic text classification vs. traditional text classification. This survey explores the past and recent advancements in semantic text classification and attempts to organize existing approaches under five fundamental categories; domain knowledge-based approaches, corpus-based approaches, deep learning based approaches, word/character sequence enhanced approaches and linguistic enriched approaches. Furthermore, this survey highlights the advantages of semantic text classification algorithms over the traditional text classification algorithms.

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.

0.013594929 = product of:
  0.0951645 = sum of:
    0.04758225 = weight(_text_:classification in 3706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04758225 = score(doc=3706,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.49761042 = fieldWeight in 3706, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3706)
    0.04758225 = weight(_text_:classification in 3706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04758225 = score(doc=3706,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.49761042 = fieldWeight in 3706, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3706)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Document classification presents challenges due to the large number of features, their dependencies, and the large number of training documents. In this research, we investigated the use of six stylistic feature sets (including 42 features) and/or six name-based feature sets (including 234 features) for various combinations of the following classification tasks: ethnic groups of the authors and/or periods of time when the documents were written and/or places where the documents were written. The investigated corpus contains Jewish Law articles written in Hebrew-Aramaic, which present interesting problems for classification. Our system CUISINE (Classification UsIng Stylistic feature sets and/or NamE-based feature sets) achieves accuracy results between 90.71 to 98.99% for the seven classification experiments (ethnicity, time, place, ethnicity&time, ethnicity&place, time&place, ethnicity&time&place). For the first six tasks, the stylistic feature sets in general and the quantitative feature set in particular are enough for excellent classification results. In contrast, the name-based feature sets are rather poor for these tasks. However, for the most complex task (ethnicity&time&place), a hill-climbing model using all feature sets succeeds in significantly improving the classification results. Most of the stylistic features (34 of 42) are language-independent and domain-independent. These features might be useful to the community at large, at least for rather simple tasks.

0.012897282 = product of:
  0.09028097 = sum of:
    0.045140486 = weight(_text_:classification in 1496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045140486 = score(doc=1496,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 1496, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1496)
    0.045140486 = weight(_text_:classification in 1496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045140486 = score(doc=1496,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 1496, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1496)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

An important aspect to performing text categorization is selecting appropriate supervised classification and feature selection methods. A comprehensive benchmark is needed to inform best practices in this broad application field. Previous benchmarks have evaluated performance for a few supervised classification and feature selection methods and limited ways to optimize them. The present work updates prior benchmarks by increasing the number of classifiers and feature selection methods order of magnitude, including adding recently developed, state-of-the-art methods. Specifically, this study used 229 text categorization data sets/tasks, and evaluated 28 classification methods (both well-established and proprietary/commercial) and 19 feature selection methods according to 4 classification performance metrics. We report several key findings that will be helpful in establishing best methodological practices for text categorization.