Document re-ranking by generality in bio-medical information retrieval

Document ranking is an important process in information retrieval (IR). It presents retrieved documents in an order of their estimated degrees of relevance to query. Traditional document ranking methods are mostly based on the similarity computations between documents and query. In this paper we argue that the similarity-based document ranking is insufficient in some cases. There are two reasons. Firstly it is about the increased information variety. There are far too many different types documents available now for user to search. The second is about the users variety. In many cases user may want to retrieve documents that are not only similar but also general or broad regarding a certain topic. This is particularly the case in some domains such as bio-medical IR. In this paper we propose a novel approach to re-rank the retrieved documents by incorporating the similarity with their generality. By an ontology-based analysis on the semantic cohesion of text, document generality can be quantified. The retrieved documents are then re-ranked by their combined scores of similarity and the closeness of documents’ generality to the query’s. Our experiments have shown an encouraging performance on a large bio-medical document collection, OHSUMED, containing 348,566 medical journal references and 101 test queries.

Ranking ontologies with AKTiveRank

Ontology search and reuse is becoming increasingly important as the quest for methods to reduce the cost of constructing such knowledge structures continues. A number of ontology libraries and search engines are coming to existence to facilitate locating and retrieving potentially relevant ontologies. The number of ontologies available for reuse is steadily growing, and so is the need for methods to evaluate and rank existing ontologies in terms of their relevance to the needs of the knowledge engineer. This paper presents AKTiveRank, a prototype system for ranking ontologies based on a number of structural metrics.

Metrics for ranking ontologies

Representing knowledge using domain ontologies has shown to be a useful mechanism and format for managing and exchanging information. Due to the difficulty and cost of building ontologies, a number of ontology libraries and search engines are coming to existence to facilitate reusing such knowledge structures. The need for ontology ranking techniques is becoming crucial as the number of ontologies available for reuse is continuing to grow. In this paper we present AKTiveRank, a prototype system for ranking ontologies based on the analysis of their structures. We describe the metrics used in the ranking system and present an experiment on ranking ontologies returned by a popular search engine for an example query.

Ontology ranking based on the analysis of concept structures

In view of the need to provide tools to facilitate the re-use of existing knowledge structures such as ontologies, we present in this paper a system, AKTiveRank, for the ranking of ontologies. AKTiveRank uses as input the search terms provided by a knowledge engineer and, using the output of an ontology search engine, ranks the ontologies. We apply a number of metrics in an attempt to investigate their appropriateness for ranking ontologies, and compare the results with a questionnaire-based human study. Our results show that AKTiveRank will have great utility although there is potential for improvement.

University ranking as social exclusion

In this article we explore the dual role of global university rankings in the creation of a new, knowledge-identified, transnational capitalist class and in facilitating new forms of social exclusion.We examine how and why the practice of ranking universities has become widely defined by national and international organisations as an important instrument of political and economic policy. We consider how the development of university rankings into a global business combining social research, marketing and public relations, as a tangible policy tool that narrowly redefines the social purposes of higher education itself. Finally, it looks at how the influence of rankings on national funding for teaching and research constrains wider public debate about the meaning of ‘good’ and meaningful education in the UK and other national contexts, particularly by shifting the debate away from democratic publics upward into the elite networked institutions of global capital. We conclude by arguing that, rather than regarding world university rankings as a means to establish criteria of educational value, the practice may be understood as an exclusionary one that furthers the alignment of higher education with neoliberal rationalities at both national and global levels.

Ranking efficient decision-making units in data envelopment analysis using fuzzy concept

This paper introduces a new mathematical method for improving the discrimination power of data envelopment analysis and to completely rank the efficient decision-making units (DMUs). Fuzzy concept is utilised. For this purpose, first all DMUs are evaluated with the CCR model. Thereafter, the resulted weights for each output are considered as fuzzy sets and are then converted to fuzzy numbers. The introduced model is a multi-objective linear model, endpoints of which are the highest and lowest of the weighted values. An added advantage of the model is its ability to handle the infeasibility situation sometimes faced by previously introduced models.

Aggregating preference ranking with fuzzy Data Envelopment Analysis

Selecting the best alternative in a group decision making is a subject of many recent studies. The most popular method proposed for ranking the alternatives is based on the distance of each alternative to the ideal alternative. The ideal alternative may never exist; hence the ranking results are biased to the ideal point. The main aim in this study is to calculate a fuzzy ideal point that is more realistic to the crisp ideal point. On the other hand, recently Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is used to find the optimum weights for ranking the alternatives. This paper proposes a four stage approach based on DEA in the Fuzzy environment to aggregate preference rankings. An application of preferential voting system shows how the new model can be applied to rank a set of alternatives. Other two examples indicate the priority of the proposed method compared to the some other suggested methods.

Merging and ranking answers in the semantic web:the wisdom of crowds

In this paper we propose algorithms for combining and ranking answers from distributed heterogeneous data sources in the context of a multi-ontology Question Answering task. Our proposal includes a merging algorithm that aggregates, combines and filters ontology-based search results and three different ranking algorithms that sort the final answers according to different criteria such as popularity, confidence and semantic interpretation of results. An experimental evaluation on a large scale corpus indicates improvements in the quality of the search results with respect to a scenario where the merging and ranking algorithms were not applied. These collective methods for merging and ranking allow to answer questions that are distributed across ontologies, while at the same time, they can filter irrelevant answers, fuse similar answers together, and elicit the most accurate answer(s) to a question.

A paradigm sensitive perspective on the ranking of accounting journals:a web-based survey approach

This paper reports the results of a web-based study of the perceptions of accounting journals in Australasia. Journal ranking studies have generally adopted citation techniques or used academics’ perceptions as the basis for assessing journal quality. Our research contributes to the existing literature by conducting a survey of academics in Australasia using a web-based instrument. The analysis indicates that the perceptions of the so-called “elite” accounting journals have become unsettled. The research highlights the emergence of more recent, alternative paradigm journals (CPA and AAAJ) as both highly ranking.

Using Sensitivity as a Method for Ranking the Test Cases Classified by Binary Decision Trees

Usually, data mining projects that are based on decision trees for classifying test cases will use the probabilities provided by these decision trees for ranking classified test cases. We have a need for a better method for ranking test cases that have already been classified by a binary decision tree because these probabilities are not always accurate and reliable enough. A reason for this is that the probability estimates computed by existing decision tree algorithms are always the same for all the different cases in a particular leaf of the decision tree. This is only one reason why the probability estimates given by decision tree algorithms can not be used as an accurate means of deciding if a test case has been correctly classified. Isabelle Alvarez has proposed a new method that could be used to rank the test cases that were classified by a binary decision tree [Alvarez, 2004]. In this paper we will give the results of a comparison of different ranking methods that are based on the probability estimate, the sensitivity of a particular case or both.

Algorithm of Consecutive Definition of Ranking of the Objects Nearest to the set Cyclic Relation between Objects

The problem of a finding of ranging of the objects nearest to the cyclic relation set by the expert between objects is considered. Formalization of the problem arising at it is resulted. The algorithm based on a method of the consecutive analysis of variants and the analysis of conditions of acyclicity is offered.

Exploiting heterogeneous scientific literature networks to combat ranking bias:evidence from the computational linguistics area

It is important to help researchers find valuable papers from a large literature collection. To this end, many graph-based ranking algorithms have been proposed. However, most of these algorithms suffer from the problem of ranking bias. Ranking bias hurts the usefulness of a ranking algorithm because it returns a ranking list with an undesirable time distribution. This paper is a focused study on how to alleviate ranking bias by leveraging the heterogeneous network structure of the literature collection. We propose a new graph-based ranking algorithm, MutualRank, that integrates mutual reinforcement relationships among networks of papers, researchers, and venues to achieve a more synthetic, accurate, and less-biased ranking than previous methods. MutualRank provides a unified model that involves both intra- and inter-network information for ranking papers, researchers, and venues simultaneously. We use the ACL Anthology Network as the benchmark data set and construct the gold standard from computer linguistics course websites of well-known universities and two well-known textbooks. The experimental results show that MutualRank greatly outperforms the state-of-the-art competitors, including PageRank, HITS, CoRank, Future Rank, and P-Rank, in ranking papers in both improving ranking effectiveness and alleviating ranking bias. Rankings of researchers and venues by MutualRank are also quite reasonable.