Text mining

Algorithm Flow chart of an algorithm (Euclid's algorithm) for calculating the greatest common divisor (g.c.d.) of two numbers a and b in locations named A and B. The algorithm proceeds by successive subtractions in two loops: IF the test B ≥ A yields "yes" (or true) (more accurately the numberb in location B is greater than or equal to the numbera in location A) THEN, the algorithm specifies B ← B − A (meaning the number b − a replaces the old b). Similarly, IF A > B, THEN A ← A − B. The process terminates when (the contents of) B is 0, yielding the g.c.d. in A. In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm ( i/ˈælɡərɪðəm/ AL-gə-ri-dhəm) is a step-by-step procedure for calculations. Informal definition[edit] While there is no generally accepted formal definition of "algorithm," an informal definition could be "a set of rules that precisely defines a sequence of operations Boolos & Jeffrey (1974, 1999) offer an informal meaning of the word in the following quotation: Formalization[edit]

Automatic summarization Methods[edit] Methods of automatic summarization include extraction-based, abstraction-based, maximum entropy-based, and aided summarization. Extraction-based summarization[edit] Two particular types of summarization often addressed in the literature are keyphrase extraction, where the goal is to select individual words or phrases to "tag" a document, and document summarization, where the goal is to select whole sentences to create a short paragraph summary. Abstraction-based summarization[edit] Extraction techniques merely copy the information deemed most important by the system to the summary (for example, key clauses, sentences or paragraphs), while abstraction involves paraphrasing sections of the source document. While some work has been done in abstractive summarization (creating an abstract synopsis like that of a human), the majority of summarization systems are extractive (selecting a subset of sentences to place in a summary). Maximum entropy-based summarization[edit]

Stroop effect Effect of psychological interference on reaction time Green Red BluePurple Red Purple Mouse Top FaceMonkey Top Monkey Naming the font color of a printed word is an easier and quicker task if word meaning and font color are congruent. In psychology, the Stroop effect is the delay in reaction time between congruent and incongruent stimuli. The effect has been used to create a psychological test (the Stroop test) that is widely used in clinical practice and investigation. A basic task that demonstrates this effect occurs when there is a mismatch between the name of a color (e.g., "blue", "green", or "red") and the color it is printed on (i.e., the word "red" printed in blue ink instead of red ink). Original experiment[edit] Stimulus 1: Purple Brown Red Blue Green Stimulus 2: Brown GreenBlueGreen Stimulus 3: ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ Examples of the three stimuli and colors used for each of the activities of the original Stroop article.[1] Experimental findings[edit]

Summarize Articles, Editorials and Essays Automatically Competition Competition in sports. A selection of images showing some of the sporting events that are classed as athletics competitions. Consequences[edit] Competition can have both beneficial and detrimental effects. Many evolutionary biologists view inter-species and intra-species competition as the driving force of adaptation, and ultimately of evolution. However, some biologists, most famously Richard Dawkins, prefer to think of evolution in terms of competition between single genes, which have the welfare of the organism 'in mind' only insofar as that welfare furthers their own selfish drives for replication. Biology and ecology[edit] Economics and business[edit] Experts have also questioned the constructiveness of competition in profitability. Three levels of economic competition have been classified: In addition, companies also compete for financing on the capital markets (equity or debt) in order to generate the necessary cash for their operations. Interstate[edit] Law[edit] Politics[edit]

Benchmarking Benchmarking is the process of comparing one's business processes and performance metrics to industry bests or best practices from other industries. Dimensions typically measured are quality, time and cost. In the process of best practice benchmarking, management identifies the best firms in their industry, or in another industry where similar processes exist, and compares the results and processes of those studied (the "targets") to one's own results and processes. Benchmarking is used to measure performance using a specific indicator (cost per unit of measure, productivity per unit of measure, cycle time of x per unit of measure or defects per unit of measure) resulting in a metric of performance that is then compared to others.[1][2] Benefits and use[edit] In 2008, a comprehensive survey[3] on benchmarking was commissioned by The Global Benchmarking Network, a network of benchmarking centers representing 22 countries. Collaborative benchmarking[edit] Procedure[edit] Costs[edit]

Complexity There is no absolute definition of what complexity means, the only consensus among researchers is that there is no agreement about the specific definition of complexity. However, a characterization of what is complex is possible.[1] Complexity is generally used to characterize something with many parts where those parts interact with each other in multiple ways. The study of these complex linkages is the main goal of complex systems theory. In science,[2] there are at this time a number of approaches to characterizing complexity, many of which are reflected in this article. Neil Johnson admits that "even among scientists, there is no unique definition of complexity - and the scientific notion has traditionally been conveyed using particular examples..." Ultimately he adopts the definition of 'complexity science' as "the study of the phenomena which emerge from a collection of interacting objects Overview[edit] Disorganized complexity vs. organized complexity[edit] Study of complexity[edit]

Explanatory power Explanatory power is the ability of a hypothesis to effectively explain the subject matter it pertains to. One theory is sometimes said to have more explanatory power than another theory about the same subject matter if it offers greater predictive power. That is, if it offers more details about what we should expect to see, and what we should not. Explanatory power may also suggest that more details of causal relations are provided, or that more facts are accounted for. Overview[edit] Deutsch says that the truth consists of detailed and "hard to vary assertions about reality" Physicist David Deutsch offers a criterion for a good explanation that he says may be just as important to scientific progress as learning to reject appeals to authority, and adopting formal empiricism and falsifiability. Deutsch takes examples from Greek mythology. References[edit]

Theory choice A main problem in the philosophy of science in the early 20th century, and under the impact of the new and controversial theories of relativity and quantum physics, came to involve how scientists should choose between competing theories. The classical answer would be to select the theory which was best verified, against which Karl Popper argued that competing theories should be subjected to comparative tests and the one chosen which survived the tests. If two theories could not, for practical reasons, be tested one should prefer the one with the highest degree of empirical content, said Popper in The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Mathematician and physicist Henri Poincaré instead, like many others, proposed simplicity as a criterion.[1] One should choose the mathematically simplest or most elegant approach. Popper's solution was subsequently criticized by Thomas S. Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Occam's razor The sun, moon and other solar system planets can be described as revolving around the Earth. However that explanation's ideological and complex assumptions are completely unfounded compared to the modern consensus that all solar system planets revolve around the Sun. Ockham's razor (also written as Occam's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287 - 1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference is a mathematically formalized Occam's Razor:[2][3][4][5][6][7] shorter computable theories have more weight when calculating the probability of the next observation, using all computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations.