Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01839171 = product of:
  0.03678342 = sum of:
    0.03678342 = product of:
      0.07356684 = sum of:
        0.07356684 = weight(_text_:web in 5897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07356684 = score(doc=5897,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 5897, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5897)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The primary objective of this study was to identify and address problems of applying a controlled vocabulary in automated subject classification of textual Web pages, in the area of engineering. Web pages have special characteristics such as structural information, but are at the same time rather heterogeneous. The classification approach used comprises string-to-string matching between words in a term list extracted from the Ei (Engineering Information) thesaurus and classification scheme, and words in the text to be classified. Based on a sample of 70 Web pages, a number of problems with the term list are identified. Reasons for those problems are discussed and improvements proposed. Methods for implementing the improvements are also specified, suggesting further research.

0.01839171 = product of:
  0.03678342 = sum of:
    0.03678342 = product of:
      0.07356684 = sum of:
        0.07356684 = weight(_text_:web in 2234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07356684 = score(doc=2234,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 2234, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2234)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study explores the navigation behaviour of all users of a large web service, Renardus, using web log analysis. Renardus provides integrated searching and browsing access to quality-controlled web resources from major individual subject gateway services. The main navigation feature is subject browsing through the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) based on mapping of classes of resources from the distributed gateways to the DDC structure. Among the more surprising results are the hugely dominant share of browsing activities, the good use of browsing support features like the graphical fish-eye overviews, rather long and varied navigation sequences, as well as extensive hierarchical directory-style browsing through the large DDC system.

0.015326426 = product of:
  0.030652853 = sum of:
    0.030652853 = product of:
      0.061305705 = sum of:
        0.061305705 = weight(_text_:web in 5600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061305705 = score(doc=5600,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 5600, 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=5600)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - To provide an integrated perspective to similarities and differences between approaches to automated classification in different research communities (machine learning, information retrieval and library science), and point to problems with the approaches and automated classification as such. Design/methodology/approach - A range of works dealing with automated classification of full-text web documents are discussed. Explorations of individual approaches are given in the following sections: special features (description, differences, evaluation), application and characteristics of web pages. Findings - Provides major similarities and differences between the three approaches: document pre-processing and utilization of web-specific document characteristics is common to all the approaches; major differences are in applied algorithms, employment or not of the vector space model and of controlled vocabularies. Problems of automated classification are recognized. Research limitations/implications - The paper does not attempt to provide an exhaustive bibliography of related resources. Practical implications - As an integrated overview of approaches from different research communities with application examples, it is very useful for students in library and information science and computer science, as well as for practitioners. Researchers from one community have the information on how similar tasks are conducted in different communities. Originality/value - To the author's knowledge, no review paper on automated text classification attempted to discuss more than one community's approach from an integrated perspective.

0.013004904 = product of:
  0.026009807 = sum of:
    0.026009807 = product of:
      0.052019615 = sum of:
        0.052019615 = weight(_text_:web in 4558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052019615 = score(doc=4558,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 4558, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4558)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.01083742 = product of:
  0.02167484 = sum of:
    0.02167484 = product of:
      0.04334968 = sum of:
        0.04334968 = weight(_text_:web in 3614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04334968 = score(doc=3614,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 3614, 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=3614)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this study is twofold: to investigate whether it is meaningful to use the Engineering Index (Ei) classification scheme for browsing, and then, if proven useful, to investigate the performance of an automated classification algorithm based on the Ei classification scheme. Design/methodology/approach - A user study was conducted in which users solved four controlled searching tasks. The users browsed the Ei classification scheme in order to examine the suitability of the classification systems for browsing. The classification algorithm was evaluated by the users who judged the correctness of the automatically assigned classes. Findings - The study showed that the Ei classification scheme is suited for browsing. Automatically assigned classes were on average partly correct, with some classes working better than others. Success of browsing showed to be correlated and dependent on classification correctness. Research limitations/implications - Further research should address problems of disparate evaluations of one and the same web page. Additional reasons behind browsing failures in the Ei classification scheme also need further investigation. Practical implications - Improvements for browsing were identified: describing class captions and/or listing their subclasses from start; allowing for searching for words from class captions with synonym search (easily provided for Ei since the classes are mapped to thesauri terms); when searching for class captions, returning the hierarchical tree expanded around the class in which caption the search term is found. The need for improvements of classification schemes was also indicated. Originality/value - A user-based evaluation of automated subject classification in the context of browsing has not been conducted before; hence the study also presents new findings concerning methodology.

0.01083742 = product of:
  0.02167484 = sum of:
    0.02167484 = product of:
      0.04334968 = sum of:
        0.04334968 = weight(_text_:web in 5398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04334968 = score(doc=5398,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 5398, 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=5398)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyse differences between tags on LibraryThing's web page and tag clouds in their "Library-Thing for Libraries" service, and assess if, and how, the Library-Thing tag moderation and limitations to the size of the tag cloud in the library catalogue affect the description of the information resource. An e-mail survey was conducted with personnel at LibraryThing, and the results were compared against tags for twenty different fiction books, collected from two different library catalogues with disparate tag cloud sizes, and Library-Thing's web page. The data were analysed using a modified version of Golder and Huberman's tag categories (2006). The results show that while LibraryThing claims to only remove the inherently personal tags, several other types of tags are found to have been discarded as well. Occasionally a certain type of tag is in-cluded in one book, and excluded in another. The comparison between the two tag cloud sizes suggests that the larger tag clouds provide a more pronounced picture regarding the contents of the book but at the cost of an increase in the number of tags with synonymous or redundant information.

0.010587957 = product of:
  0.021175914 = sum of:
    0.021175914 = product of:
      0.042351827 = sum of:
        0.042351827 = weight(_text_:22 in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042351827 = score(doc=1347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1347, 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=1347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2014 17:12:54