Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.031106493 = product of:
  0.093319476 = sum of:
    0.046208907 = weight(_text_:world in 4450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046208907 = score(doc=4450,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.30028677 = fieldWeight in 4450, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4450)
    0.047110565 = weight(_text_:web in 4450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047110565 = score(doc=4450,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 4450, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4450)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Web data repositories usually contain references to thousands of real-world entities from multiple sources. It is not uncommon that multiple entities share the same label (polysemes) and that distinct label variations are associated with the same entity (synonyms), which frequently leads to ambiguous interpretations. Further, spelling variants, acronyms, abbreviated forms, and misspellings compound to worsen the problem. Solving this problem requires identifying which labels correspond to the same real-world entity, a process known as entity resolution. One approach to solve the entity resolution problem is to associate an authority identifier and a list of variant forms with each entity-a data structure known as an authority file. In this work, we propose a generic framework for implementing a method for generating authority files. Our method uses information from the Web to improve the quality of the authority file and, because of that, is referred to as WER-Web-based Entity Resolution. Our contribution here is threefold: (a) we discuss how to implement the WER framework, which is flexible and easy to adapt to new domains; (b) we run extended experimentation with our WER framework to show that it outperforms selected baselines; and (c) we compare the results of a specialized solution for author name resolution with those produced by the generic WER framework, and show that the WER results remain competitive.

0.014117531 = product of:
  0.04235259 = sum of:
    0.0333122 = weight(_text_:web in 3343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0333122 = score(doc=3343,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 3343, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3343)
    0.009040388 = product of:
      0.027121164 = sum of:
        0.027121164 = weight(_text_:22 in 3343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027121164 = score(doc=3343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

16.11.2017 13:04:22

Object

Web 2.0

0.014117531 = product of:
  0.04235259 = sum of:
    0.0333122 = weight(_text_:web in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0333122 = score(doc=3524,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 3524, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3524)
    0.009040388 = product of:
      0.027121164 = sum of:
        0.027121164 = weight(_text_:22 in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027121164 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Tags (keywords freely assigned by users to describe web content) have become highly popular on Web 2.0 applications, because of the strong stimuli and easiness for users to create and describe their own content. This increase in tag popularity has led to a vast literature on tag recommendation methods. These methods aim at assisting users in the tagging process, possibly increasing the quality of the generated tags and, consequently, improving the quality of the information retrieval (IR) services that rely on tags as data sources. Regardless of the numerous and diversified previous studies on tag recommendation, to our knowledge, no previous work has summarized and organized them into a single survey article. In this article, we propose a taxonomy for tag recommendation methods, classifying them according to the target of the recommendations, their objectives, exploited data sources, and underlying techniques. Moreover, we provide a critical overview of these methods, pointing out their advantages and disadvantages. Finally, we describe the main open challenges related to the field, such as tag ambiguity, cold start, and evaluation issues.

Date

16.11.2017 13:30:22

0.011777641 = product of:
  0.070665844 = sum of:
    0.070665844 = weight(_text_:web in 4921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070665844 = score(doc=4921,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.5408555 = fieldWeight in 4921, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4921)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Traditional text-based document classifiers tend to perform poorly an the Web. Text in Web documents is usually noisy and often does not contain enough information to determine their topic. However, the Web provides a different source that can be useful to document classification: its hyperlink structure. In this work, the authors evaluate how the link structure of the Web can be used to determine a measure of similarity appropriate for document classification. They experiment with five different similarity measures and determine their adequacy for predicting the topic of a Web page. Tests performed an a Web directory Show that link information alone allows classifying documents with an average precision of 86%. Further, when combined with a traditional textbased classifier, precision increases to values of up to 90%, representing gains that range from 63 to 132% over the use of text-based classification alone. Because the measures proposed in this article are straightforward to compute, they provide a practical and effective solution for Web classification and related information retrieval tasks. Further, the authors provide an important set of guidelines an how link structure can be used effectively to classify Web documents.

0.009616404 = product of:
  0.05769842 = sum of:
    0.05769842 = weight(_text_:web in 2531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05769842 = score(doc=2531,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 2531, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2531)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.00815979 = product of:
  0.048958737 = sum of:
    0.048958737 = weight(_text_:web in 4119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048958737 = score(doc=4119,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 4119, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4119)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this work, we investigate the problem of using the block structure of Web pages to improve ranking results. Starting with basic intuitions provided by the concepts of term frequency (TF) and inverse document frequency (IDF), we propose nine block-weight functions to distinguish the impact of term occurrences inside page blocks, instead of inside whole pages. These are then used to compute a modified BM25 ranking function. Using four distinct Web collections, we ran extensive experiments to compare our block-weight ranking formulas with two other baselines: (a) a BM25 ranking applied to full pages, and (b) a BM25 ranking that takes into account best blocks. Our methods suggest that our block-weighting ranking method is superior to all baselines across all collections we used and that average gain in precision figures from 5 to 20% are generated.

0.0077014845 = product of:
  0.046208907 = sum of:
    0.046208907 = weight(_text_:world in 1292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046208907 = score(doc=1292,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.30028677 = fieldWeight in 1292, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1292)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

We present a novel 3-step self-training method for author name disambiguation-SAND (self-training associative name disambiguator)-which requires no manual labeling, no parameterization (in real-world scenarios) and is particularly suitable for the common situation in which only the most basic information about a citation record is available (i.e., author names, and work and venue titles). During the first step, real-world heuristics on coauthors are able to produce highly pure (although fragmented) clusters. The most representative of these clusters are then selected to serve as training data for the third supervised author assignment step. The third step exploits a state-of-the-art transductive disambiguation method capable of detecting unseen authors not included in any training example and incorporating reliable predictions to the training data. Experiments conducted with standard public collections, using the minimum set of attributes present in a citation, demonstrate that our proposed method outperforms all representative unsupervised author grouping disambiguation methods and is very competitive with fully supervised author assignment methods. Thus, different from other bootstrapping methods that explore privileged, hard to obtain information such as self-citations and personal information, our proposed method produces topnotch performance with no (manual) training data or parameterization and in the presence of scarce information.

0.0065349266 = product of:
  0.03920956 = sum of:
    0.03920956 = weight(_text_:world in 3587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03920956 = score(doc=3587,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 3587, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3587)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The vast majority of the current author name disambiguation solutions are designed to disambiguate a whole digital library (DL) at once considering the entire repository. However, these solutions besides being very expensive and having scalability problems, also may not benefit from eventual manual corrections, as they may be lost whenever the process of disambiguating the entire repository is required. In the real world, in which repositories are updated on a daily basis, incremental solutions that disambiguate only the newly introduced citation records, are likely to produce improved results in the long run. However, the problem of incremental author name disambiguation has been largely neglected in the literature. In this article we present a new author name disambiguation method, specially designed for the incremental scenario. In our experiments, our new method largely outperforms recent incremental proposals reported in the literature as well as the current state-of-the-art non-incremental method.

0.0054457723 = product of:
  0.032674633 = sum of:
    0.032674633 = weight(_text_:world in 937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032674633 = score(doc=937,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 937, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=937)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this article, we elaborate on the meaning of quality in digital libraries (DLs) by proposing a model that is deeply grounded in a formal framework for digital libraries: 5S (Streams, Structures, Spaces, Scenarios, and Societies). For each major DL concept in the framework we formally define a number of dimensions of quality and propose a set of numerical indicators for those quality dimensions. In particular, we consider key concepts of a minimal DL: catalog, collection, digital object, metadata specification, repository, and services. Regarding quality dimensions, we consider: accessibility, accuracy, completeness, composability, conformance, consistency, effectiveness, efficiency, extensibility, pertinence, preservability, relevance, reliability, reusability, significance, similarity, and timeliness. Regarding measurement, we consider characteristics like: response time (with regard to efficiency), cost of migration (with respect to preservability), and number of service failures (to assess reliability). For some key DL concepts, the (quality dimension, numerical indicator) pairs are illustrated through their application to a number of "real-world" digital libraries. We also discuss connections between the proposed dimensions of DL quality and an expanded version of a workshop's consensus view of the life cycle of information in digital libraries. Such connections can be used to determine when and where quality issues can be measured, assessed, and improved - as well as how possible quality problems can be prevented, detected, and eliminated.

0.0054457723 = product of:
  0.032674633 = sum of:
    0.032674633 = weight(_text_:world in 3986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032674633 = score(doc=3986,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 3986, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3986)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Name ambiguity in the context of bibliographic citations is a difficult problem which, despite the many efforts from the research community, still has a lot of room for improvement. In this article, we present a heuristic-based hierarchical clustering method to deal with this problem. The method successively fuses clusters of citations of similar author names based on several heuristics and similarity measures on the components of the citations (e.g., coauthor names, work title, and publication venue title). During the disambiguation task, the information about fused clusters is aggregated providing more information for the next round of fusion. In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, we ran a series of experiments in two different collections extracted from real-world digital libraries and compared it, under two metrics, with four representative methods described in the literature. We present comparisons of results using each considered attribute separately (i.e., coauthor names, work title, and publication venue title) with the author name attribute and using all attributes together. These results show that our unsupervised method, when using all attributes, performs competitively against all other methods, under both metrics, loosing only in one case against a supervised method, whose result was very close to ours. Moreover, such results are achieved without the burden of any training and without using any privileged information such as knowing a priori the correct number of clusters.

0.0039258804 = product of:
  0.023555283 = sum of:
    0.023555283 = weight(_text_:web in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023555283 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0039258804 = product of:
  0.023555283 = sum of:
    0.023555283 = weight(_text_:web in 4219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023555283 = score(doc=4219,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4219, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4219)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0015204087 = product of:
  0.009122452 = sum of:
    0.009122452 = product of:
      0.027367353 = sum of:
        0.027367353 = weight(_text_:29 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027367353 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14083174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

26. 1.2014 20:29:57