Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0057466435 = product of:
  0.040226504 = sum of:
    0.040226504 = weight(_text_:computer in 4219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040226504 = score(doc=4219,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.28550854 = fieldWeight in 4219, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4219)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This article proposes a process to retrieve the URL of a document for which metadata records exist in a digital library catalog but a pointer to the full text of the document is not available. The process uses results from queries submitted to Web search engines for finding the URL of the corresponding full text or any related material. We present a comprehensive study of this process in different situations by investigating different query strategies applied to three general purpose search engines (Google, Yahoo!, MSN) and two specialized ones (Scholar and CiteSeer), considering five user scenarios. Specifically, we have conducted experiments with metadata records taken from the Brazilian Digital Library of Computing (BDBComp) and The DBLP Computer Science Bibliography (DBLP). We found that Scholar was the most effective search engine for this task in all considered scenarios and that simple strategies for combining and re-ranking results from Scholar and Google significantly improve the retrieval quality. Moreover, we study the influence of the number of query results on the effectiveness of finding missing information as well as the coverage of the proposed scenarios.

0.004063491 = product of:
  0.028444434 = sum of:
    0.028444434 = weight(_text_:computer in 2531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028444434 = score(doc=2531,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 2531, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2531)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

It is well known that links are an important source of information when dealing with Web collections. However, the question remains on whether the same techniques that are used on the Web can be applied to collections of documents containing citations between scientific papers. In this work we present a comparative study of digital library citations and Web links, in the context of automatic text classification. We show that there are in fact differences between citations and links in this context. For the comparison, we run a series of experiments using a digital library of computer science papers and a Web directory. In our reference collections, measures based on co-citation tend to perform better for pages in the Web directory, with gains up to 37% over text based classifiers, while measures based on bibliographic coupling perform better in a digital library. We also propose a simple and effective way of combining a traditional text based classifier with a citation-link based classifier. This combination is based on the notion of classifier reliability and presented gains of up to 14% in micro-averaged F1 in the Web collection. However, no significant gain was obtained in the digital library. Finally, a user study was performed to further investigate the causes for these results. We discovered that misclassifications by the citation-link based classifiers are in fact difficult cases, hard to classify even for humans.

0.004063491 = product of:
  0.028444434 = sum of:
    0.028444434 = weight(_text_:computer in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028444434 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In this article we present FLUX-CiM, a novel method for extracting components (e.g., author names, article titles, venues, page numbers) from bibliographic citations. Our method does not rely on patterns encoding specific delimiters used in a particular citation style. This feature yields a high degree of automation and flexibility, and allows FLUX-CiM to extract from citations in any given format. Differently from previous methods that are based on models learned from user-driven training, our method relies on a knowledge base automatically constructed from an existing set of sample metadata records from a given field (e.g., computer science, health sciences, social sciences, etc.). These records are usually available on the Web or other public data repositories. To demonstrate the effectiveness and applicability of our proposed method, we present a series of experiments in which we apply it to extract bibliographic data from citations in articles of different fields. Results of these experiments exhibit precision and recall levels above 94% for all fields, and perfect extraction for the large majority of citations tested. In addition, in a comparison against a state-of-the-art information-extraction method, ours produced superior results without the training phase required by that method. Finally, we present a strategy for using bibliographic data resulting from the extraction process with FLUX-CiM to automatically update and expand the knowledge base of a given domain. We show that this strategy can be used to achieve good extraction results even if only a very small initial sample of bibliographic records is available for building the knowledge base.

0.0018655253 = product of:
  0.013058676 = sum of:
    0.013058676 = product of:
      0.026117353 = sum of:
        0.026117353 = weight(_text_:22 in 3343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026117353 = score(doc=3343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13500787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038553525 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3343, 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=3343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

16.11.2017 13:04:22

0.0018655253 = product of:
  0.013058676 = sum of:
    0.013058676 = product of:
      0.026117353 = sum of:
        0.026117353 = weight(_text_:22 in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026117353 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13500787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038553525 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3524, 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=3524)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

16.11.2017 13:30:22