Thats a unique idea.You should consider the following idea to enhance your idea so that it would impact uniquely: Most of the research on text categorization has focused on classifying text documents into a set of categories with no structural relationships among them (flat classification). Hover, in many information repositories documents are organized in a hierarchy of categories to support a thematic search by browsing topics of interests. The consideration of the hierarchical relationship among categories opens several additional issues in the development of methods for automated document classification. Questions concern the representation of documents, the learning process, the classification process and the evaluation criteria of experimental results. They are systematically investigated in this paper, whose main contribution is a general hierarchical text categorization framework where the hierarchy of categories is involved in all phases of automated document classification, namely feature selection, learning and classification of a new document. An automated threshold determination method for classification scores is embedded in the proposed framework. It can be applied to any classifier that returns a degree of membership of a document to a category. In this work three learning methods are considered for the construction of document classifiers, namely centroid-based, naive Bayes and SVM. The proposed framework has been implemented in the system bClassIII and has been tested on three datasets (Yahoo, DMOZ, RCV1) which present a variety of situations in terms of hierarchical structure. Experimental results are reported and several conclusions are drawn on the comparison of the flat vs. the hierarchical approach as ll as on the comparison of different hierarchical classifiers. The paper concludes with a review of related work and a discussion of previous findings vs. our findings.
['Michelangelo Ceci', 'Donato Malerba']
I am writing a research paper on a idea Classifying web documents in a hierarchy of categories: a comprehensive study
[{"from": "human", "value": "I am writing a research paper on a idea Classifying web documents in a hierarchy of categories: a comprehensive study"}, {"from": "gpt", "value": "Thats a unique idea.You should consider the following idea to enhance your idea so that it would impact uniquely: Most of the research on text categorization has focused on classifying text documents into a set of categories with no structural relationships among them (flat classification). Hover, in many information repositories documents are organized in a hierarchy of categories to support a thematic search by browsing topics of interests. The consideration of the hierarchical relationship among categories opens several additional issues in the development of methods for automated document classification. Questions concern the representation of documents, the learning process, the classification process and the evaluation criteria of experimental results. They are systematically investigated in this paper, whose main contribution is a general hierarchical text categorization framework where the hierarchy of categories is involved in all phases of automated document classification, namely feature selection, learning and classification of a new document. An automated threshold determination method for classification scores is embedded in the proposed framework. It can be applied to any classifier that returns a degree of membership of a document to a category. In this work three learning methods are considered for the construction of document classifiers, namely centroid-based, naive Bayes and SVM. The proposed framework has been implemented in the system bClassIII and has been tested on three datasets (Yahoo, DMOZ, RCV1) which present a variety of situations in terms of hierarchical structure. Experimental results are reported and several conclusions are drawn on the comparison of the flat vs. the hierarchical approach as ll as on the comparison of different hierarchical classifiers. The paper concludes with a review of related work and a discussion of previous findings vs. our findings."}]