Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Automatisches Abstracting"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Craven, T.C.: Abstracts produced using computer assistance (2000) 0.01
    0.008394462 = product of:
      0.03357785 = sum of:
        0.03357785 = product of:
          0.0671557 = sum of:
            0.0671557 = weight(_text_:software in 4809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0671557 = score(doc=4809,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = queryNorm
                0.3719205 = fieldWeight in 4809, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4809)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Experimental subjects wrote abstracts using a simplified version of the TEXNET abstracting assistance software. In addition to the full text, subjects were presented with either keywords or phrases extracted automatically. The resulting abstracts, and the times taken, were recorded automatically; some additional information was gathered by oral questionnaire. Selected abstracts produced were evaluated on various criteria by independent raters. Results showed considerable variation among subjects, but 37% found the keywords or phrases 'quite' or 'very' useful in writing their abstracts. Statistical analysis failed to support several hypothesized relations: phrases were not viewed as significantly more helpful than keywords; and abstracting experience did not correlate with originality of wording, approximation of the author abstract, or greater conciseness. Requiring further study are some unanticipated strong correlations including the following: Windows experience and writing an abstract like the author's; experience reading abstracts and thinking one had written a good abstract; gender and abstract length; gender and use of words and phrases from the original text. Results have also suggested possible modifications to the TEXNET software
  2. Vanderwende, L.; Suzuki, H.; Brockett, J.M.; Nenkova, A.: Beyond SumBasic : task-focused summarization with sentence simplification and lexical expansion (2007) 0.00
    0.0046249838 = product of:
      0.018499935 = sum of:
        0.018499935 = product of:
          0.03699987 = sum of:
            0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03699987 = score(doc=948,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 948, 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=948)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    In recent years, there has been increased interest in topic-focused multi-document summarization. In this task, automatic summaries are produced in response to a specific information request, or topic, stated by the user. The system we have designed to accomplish this task comprises four main components: a generic extractive summarization system, a topic-focusing component, sentence simplification, and lexical expansion of topic words. This paper details each of these components, together with experiments designed to quantify their individual contributions. We include an analysis of our results on two large datasets commonly used to evaluate task-focused summarization, the DUC2005 and DUC2006 datasets, using automatic metrics. Additionally, we include an analysis of our results on the DUC2006 task according to human evaluation metrics. In the human evaluation of system summaries compared to human summaries, i.e., the Pyramid method, our system ranked first out of 22 systems in terms of overall mean Pyramid score; and in the human evaluation of summary responsiveness to the topic, our system ranked third out of 35 systems.
  3. Dunlavy, D.M.; O'Leary, D.P.; Conroy, J.M.; Schlesinger, J.D.: QCS: A system for querying, clustering and summarizing documents (2007) 0.00
    0.0039571873 = product of:
      0.01582875 = sum of:
        0.01582875 = product of:
          0.0316575 = sum of:
            0.0316575 = weight(_text_:software in 947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0316575 = score(doc=947,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = queryNorm
                0.17532499 = fieldWeight in 947, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=947)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Information retrieval systems consist of many complicated components. Research and development of such systems is often hampered by the difficulty in evaluating how each particular component would behave across multiple systems. We present a novel integrated information retrieval system-the Query, Cluster, Summarize (QCS) system-which is portable, modular, and permits experimentation with different instantiations of each of the constituent text analysis components. Most importantly, the combination of the three types of methods in the QCS design improves retrievals by providing users more focused information organized by topic. We demonstrate the improved performance by a series of experiments using standard test sets from the Document Understanding Conferences (DUC) as measured by the best known automatic metric for summarization system evaluation, ROUGE. Although the DUC data and evaluations were originally designed to test multidocument summarization, we developed a framework to extend it to the task of evaluation for each of the three components: query, clustering, and summarization. Under this framework, we then demonstrate that the QCS system (end-to-end) achieves performance as good as or better than the best summarization engines. Given a query, QCS retrieves relevant documents, separates the retrieved documents into topic clusters, and creates a single summary for each cluster. In the current implementation, Latent Semantic Indexing is used for retrieval, generalized spherical k-means is used for the document clustering, and a method coupling sentence "trimming" and a hidden Markov model, followed by a pivoted QR decomposition, is used to create a single extract summary for each cluster. The user interface is designed to provide access to detailed information in a compact and useful format. Our system demonstrates the feasibility of assembling an effective IR system from existing software libraries, the usefulness of the modularity of the design, and the value of this particular combination of modules.
  4. Wu, Y.-f.B.; Li, Q.; Bot, R.S.; Chen, X.: Finding nuggets in documents : a machine learning approach (2006) 0.00
    0.0038541534 = product of:
      0.015416614 = sum of:
        0.015416614 = product of:
          0.030833228 = sum of:
            0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 5290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030833228 = score(doc=5290,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5290, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5290)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    22. 7.2006 17:25:48