In the recent literature, we have seen the expansion of information retrieval techniques to include a variety of different collections of information. Collections can have certain characteristics that can lead to different results for the various classification techniques. In addition, the ways and reasons that users explore each collection can affect the success of the information retrieval technique. The focus of this research was to extend the application of our statistical and neural network techniques to the domain of geological science information retrieval. For this study, a test bed of 22,636 geoscience abstracts was obtained through the NSF/DARPA/NASA funded Alexandria Digital Library Initiative project at the University of California at Santa Barbara. This collection was analyzed using algorithms previously developed by our research group: concept space algorithm for searching and a Kohonen self-organizing map (SOM) algorithm for browsing. Included in this paper are discussions of our techniques, user evaluations and lessons learned.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
[1] T.R. Smith , A digital library for geographically referenced materials , IEEE COMPUTER29(5) (1996) 54-60 .
2.
[2] J. Bichteler and D. Ward , Information-seeking behavior of geoscientists , Special Libraries80(3) (1989).
[4] K.A. Frenkel , The human genome project and informatics , Communications of the ACM34(11) (1991) 41-51 .
5.
[5] H. Chen , J. Martinez , D.T. Ng and B.R. Schatz , A concept space approach to addressing the vocabulary problem in scientific information retrieval: an experiment on the Worm Community System , Journal of the American Society for Information Science48(1) (1997) 17-31 .
6.
[6] G.W. Furnas , T.K. Landauer , L.M. Gomez and S.T. Dumais , The vocabulary problem in human-system communication , Communications of the ACM30(11) (1987) 964-971 .
7.
[7] M.J. Bates , Subject access in online catalogs: a design model , Journal of the American Society for Information Science37(6) (1986) 357-376 .
8.
[8] G.W. Furnas , Statistical semantics: how can a computer use what people name things to guess what things people mean when they name things? In: Proceedings of the Human Factors in Computer Systems Conference (Association for Computing Machinery, Gaithersburg, MD, March 1982), pp. 251-253 .
9.
[9] L.M. Gomez , C.C. Lochbaum and T.K. Landauer , All the right words: finding what you want as a function of the richness of indexing vocabulary , Journal of the American Society for Information Science41(8) (1990) 547-559 .
10.
[10] G. Salton , Another look at automatic text-retrieval systems , Communications of the ACM29(7) (1986) 648-656 .
11.
[11] G. Salton and M. McGill , Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval ( McGraw-Hill, New York , 1983).
12.
[12] G. Salton , A. Wong and C.S. Yang , A vector space model for automatic indexing , Communications of the ACM18(11) (1975) 613-620 .
13.
[13] H.J. Peat and P. Willett , The limitations of term co-occurrence data for query expansion in document retrieval systems , Journal of the American Society for Information Science42(5) (1991) 378-383 .
14.
[14] B. Everitt , Cluster Analysis2nd ed. ( Heinemann Educational Books, London , 1980).
15.
[15] T. Kohonen , Self-organizing Maps ( Springer-Verlag, Berlin , 1995).
16.
[16] H. Chen , C. Schuffels and R. Orwig , Internet categorization and search: a machine learning , Journal of Visual Communications and Image Representation7(l) (1996) 88-102 .
17.
[17] J. Tillotson , Is keyword searching the answer?College and Research Libraries56 (1995) 199-206 .
18.
[18] H. Chen , A. Houston , R. Sewell and B. Schatz , Internet browsing and searching: user evaluations of category map and concept space techniques , Journal of the American Society for Information Science49(7) (1998) 582-603 .
