Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Bean, C.A."
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Green, R.; Bean, C.A.: Aligning systems of relationships (2006) 0.01 
    0.014886984 = product of:
  0.066991426 = sum of:
    0.020741362 = weight(_text_:of in 4949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020741362 = score(doc=4949,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 4949, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4949)
    0.046250064 = weight(_text_:systems in 4949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046250064 = score(doc=4949,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 4949, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4949)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    The lateral relations of Neelameghan and Raghavan are mapped to their closest correspondents in FrameNet. Analvsis of this alignment highlights important characteristics of each system of relationships and reveals varying degrees of compatibility between them.
    Source
    Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Ed. by K.S. Raghavan and K.N. Prasad
  2. Bodenreider, O.; Bean, C.A.: Relationships among knowledge structures : vocabulary integration within a subject domain (2001) 0.01 
    0.011475093 = product of:
  0.051637918 = sum of:
    0.018934188 = weight(_text_:of in 1145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018934188 = score(doc=1145,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 1145, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1145)
    0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 1145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03270373 = score(doc=1145,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 1145, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1145)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    The structure of terminology systems can be seen as one way to organize knowledge. This paper focuses an three types of relationships among terms: synonymy, hierarchical relationships, and explicit mapping relationships. Examples drawn from various medical vocabularies illustrate each type of relationship. The integration of disparate terminological knowledge structures in the Unified Medical Language System is presented and discussed.
    Source
    Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
  3. Bean, C.A.; Corn, M.: Extramural funding opportunities in bioinformatics from the National Library of Medicine : an integrated foundation for discovery (2005) 0.01 
    0.009327328 = product of:
  0.041972976 = sum of:
    0.020741362 = weight(_text_:of in 5262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020741362 = score(doc=5262,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 5262, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5262)
    0.021231614 = product of:
      0.042463228 = sum of:
        0.042463228 = weight(_text_:22 in 5262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042463228 = score(doc=5262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    National Library of Medicine (NLM) extramural programs in bioinformatics are described in the context of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding mechanisms and illustrated through a sampling of recently funded grants. The NIH application, evaluation, and funding process is described as used by the NLM.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 14:59:52
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.5, S.551-556
  4. Green, R.; Bean, C.A.; Hudon, M.: Universality and basic level concepts (2003) 0.01 
    0.008259334 = product of:
  0.037167 = sum of:
    0.01404197 = weight(_text_:of in 2730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01404197 = score(doc=2730,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2292085 = fieldWeight in 2730, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2730)
    0.023125032 = weight(_text_:systems in 2730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023125032 = score(doc=2730,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.19207339 = fieldWeight in 2730, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2730)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    This paper examines whether a concept's hierarchical level affects the likelihood of its universality across schemes for knowledge representation and knowledge organization. Empirical data an equivalents are drawn from a bilingual thesaurus, a pair of biomedical vocabularies, and two ontologies. Conceptual equivalence across resources occurs significantly more often at the basic level than at subordinate or superordinate levels. Attempts to integrate knowledge representation or knowledge organization tools should concentrate an establishing equivalences at the basic level. 1. Rationale The degree of success attainable in the integration of multiple knowledge representation systems or knowledge organization schemes is constrained by limitations an the universality of human conceptual systems. For example, human languages do not all lexicalize the same set of concepts; nor do they structure (quasi-)equivalent concepts in the same relational patterns (Riesthuis, 2001). As a consequence, even multilingual thesauri designed from the outset from the perspective of multiple languages may routinely include situations where corresponding terms are not truly equivalent (Hudon, 1997, 2001). Intuitively, where inexactness and partialness in equivalence mappings across knowledge representation schemes and knowledge organizations schemes exist, a more difficult retrieval scenario arises than where equivalence mappings reflect full and exact conceptual matches. The question we address in this paper is whether a concept's hierarchical level af ects the likelihood of its universality/full equivalence across schemes for knowledge representation and knowledge organization. Cognitive science research has shown that one particular hierarchical level-called the basic level--enjoys a privileged status (Brown, 1958; Rosch et al., 1976). Our underlying hypothesis is that concepts at the basic level (e.g., apple, shoe, chair) are more likely to match across knowledge representation schemes and knowledge organization schemes than concepts at the superordinate (e.g., fruit, footwear, furniture) or subordinate (e.g., Granny Smith, sneaker, recliner) levels. This hypothesis is consistent with ethnobiological data showing that folk classifications of flora are more likely to agree at the basic level than at superordinate or subordinate levels (Berlin, 1992).
    Source
    Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas
  5. Bean, C.A.: Representation of medical knowledge for automated semantic interpretation of clinical reports (2004) 0.00 
    0.002304596 = product of:
  0.020741362 = sum of:
    0.020741362 = weight(_text_:of in 2660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020741362 = score(doc=2660,freq=48.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 2660, product of:
          6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
            48.0 = termFreq=48.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2660)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    A set of cardiac catheterisation case reports was analysed to identify and encode for automated interpretation of the semantic indicators of location and severity of disease in coronary arteries. Presence of disease was indicated by the use of specific or general disease terms, typically with a modifier, while absence of disease was indicated by negation of similar phrases. Disease modifiers indicating severity could be qualitative or quantitative, and a 7-point severity scale was devised to normalise these modifiers based an relative clinical significance. Location of disease was indicated in three basic ways: By situation in arbitrary topographic divisions, by situation relative to a named structure, or by using named structures as boundary delimiters to describe disease extent. In addition, semantic indicators were identified for such topological relationships as proximity, contiguity, overlap, and enclosure. Spatial reasoning was often necessary to understand the specific localisation of disease, demonstrating the need for a general Spatial extension to the underlying knowledge base.
    Content
    1. Introduction In automated semantic interpretation, the expressions in natural language text are mapped to a knowledge model, thus providing a means of normalising the relevant concepts and relationships encountered. However, the ultimate goal of comprehensive and consistent semantic interpretation of unrestrained text, even within a single domain such as medicine, is still beyond the current state of the art of natural language processing. In order to scale back the complexity of the task of automated semantic interpretation, we have restricted our domain of interest to coronary artery anatomy and our text to cardiac catheterisation reports. Using a multi-phased approach, a staged series of projects is enhancing the development of a semantic interpretation system for free clinical text in the specific subdomain of coronary arteriography.
    Source
    Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine
  6. Bean, C.A.: Hierarchical relationships used in mapping between knowledge structures (2006) 0.00 
    0.0020165213 = product of:
  0.018148692 = sum of:
    0.018148692 = weight(_text_:of in 5866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018148692 = score(doc=5866,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 5866, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5866)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    User-designated Broader-Narrower Term pairs were analyzed to better characterize the nature and structure of the relationships between the pair members, previously determined by experts to be hierarchical in nature. Semantic analysis revealed that almost three-quarters (72%) of the term pairs were characterized as is-a (-kind-of) relationships and the rest (28%) as part-whole relationships. Four basic patterns of syntactic specification were observed. Implications of the findings for mapping strategies are discussed.
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
  7. Bean, C.A.: Mapping down : semantic and structural relationships in user-designated broader-narrow term pairs (2000) 0.00 
    0.0016464829 = product of:
  0.014818345 = sum of:
    0.014818345 = weight(_text_:of in 90) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014818345 = score(doc=90,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 90, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=90)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    The NLM/AHCPR Large-Scale Vocabulary Test data set was used to investigate the nature of ad hoc relationships formed when users mapped broader to narrower terms as the closest available conceptual match. Among the 1,162 term pairs examined, the most common semantic differences were based on anatomical or functional distinctions between the terms. As expected, modification accounted for the majority of syntagmatic specifications characterized, but hierarchical specification accounted for over a fifth of the mappings
    Source
    Dynamism and stability in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 6th International ISKO-Conference, 10-13 July 2000, Toronto, Canada. Ed.: C. Beghtol et al
  8. Bean, C.A.; Green, R.: Improving subject retrieval with frame representation (2003) 0.00 
    0.001330559 = product of:
  0.011975031 = sum of:
    0.011975031 = weight(_text_:of in 3960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011975031 = score(doc=3960,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 3960, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3960)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Frames are integrated structures that address equivalence, hierarchical, and associative relationships. The richness of their internal organization and extemal relationality provide power and flexibility in meeting user needs for both high recall and high precision, as required.
    Source
    Subject retrieval in a networked environment: Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting held in Dublin, OH, 14-16 August 2001 and sponsored by the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section, the IFLA Information Technology Section and OCLC. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine
  9. Bean, C.A.; Green, R.: Relevance relationships (2001) 0.00 
    0.0011642392 = product of:
  0.010478153 = sum of:
    0.010478153 = weight(_text_:of in 1150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010478153 = score(doc=1150,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 1150, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1150)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Relevance arises from relationships between user needs and documents/information. In the quest for relevant retrieval, some content-based relationships are best used initially to cast a net that emphasizes recall, while others, both content- and non-content-based, are best used subsequently as filtering devices to achieve better precision. Topical relevance, the primary factor in the initial retrieval operation, extends far beyond topic matching, as often assumed. Empirical studies demonstrate that topical relevance relationships are drawn from a broad but systematic inventory of semantic relationships.
    Source
    Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green

Authors

Themes