Search (55 results, page 2 of 3)

6.425844E-4 = product of:
  0.009638766 = sum of:
    0.009638766 = weight(_text_:in in 2676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009638766 = score(doc=2676,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.2167489 = fieldWeight in 2676, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2676)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

We investigated an approach to automatic discourse parsing of sociology dissertation abstracts as a sentence categorization task. Decision tree induction was used for the automatic categorization. Three models were developed. Model 1 made use of word tokens found in the sentences. Model 2 made use of both word tokens and sentence position in the abstract. In addition to the attributes used in Model 2, Model 3 also considered information regarding the presence of indicator words in surrounding sentences. Model 3 obtained the highest accuracy rate of 74.5 % when applied to a test sample, compared to 71.6% for Model 2 and 60.8% for Model 1. The results indicated that information about sentence position can substantially increase the accuracy of categorization, and indicator words in earlier sentences (before the sentence being processed) also contribute to the categorization accuracy.

Content

1. Introduction This paper reports our initial effort to develop an automatic method for parsing the discourse structure of sociology dissertation abstracts. This study is part of a broader study to develop a method for multi-document summarization. Accurate discourse parsing will make it easier to perform automatic multi-document summarization of dissertation abstracts. In a previous study, we determined that the macro-level structure of dissertation abstracts typically has five sections (Khoo et al., 2002). In this study, we treated discourse parsing as a text categorization problem - assigning each sentence in a dissertation abstract to one of the five predefined sections or categories. Decision tree induction, a machine-learning method, was applied to word tokens found in the abstracts to construct a decision tree model for the categorization purpose. Decision tree induction was selected primarily because decision tree models are easy to interpret and can be converted to rules that can be incorporated in other computer programs. A well-known decision-tree induction program, C5.0 (Quinlan, 1993), was used in this study.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9

6.301059E-4 = product of:
  0.009451588 = sum of:
    0.009451588 = weight(_text_:in in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009451588 = score(doc=2362,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Many writers of structured abstracts spend a good deal of time revising and polishing their texts - but is it worth it? Do readers notice the difference? In this paper we report three studies of readers using rating scales to judge (electronically) the clarity of an original and a revised abstract, both as a whole and in its constituent parts. In Study 1, with approximately 250 academics and research workers, we found some significant differences in favor of the revised abstract, but in Study 2, with approximately 210 information scientists, we found no significant effects. Pooling the data from Studies 1 and 2, however, in Study 3, led to significant differences at a higher probability level between the perception of the original and revised abstract as a whole and between the same components as found in Study 1. These results thus indicate that the revised abstract as a whole, as well as certain specific components of it, were judged significantly clearer than the original one. In short, the results of these experiments show that readers can and do perceive differences between original and revised texts - sometimes - and that therefore these efforts are worth the time and effort.

6.2377297E-4 = product of:
  0.009356594 = sum of:
    0.009356594 = weight(_text_:in in 687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009356594 = score(doc=687,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 687, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=687)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

The need for criteria by which to judge the adequacy of an abstract is felt most strongly when evaluating machine-produced abstracts. In order to develop a set of criteria, a survey was conducted of the instructions prepared by various scientific publications as a guide to their abstracters in the preparation of copy. One-hundred-and-thirty sets of instructions were analyzed and compared as to their function, content, and form. It was concluded that, while differences in subject matter do not necessarily require different kinds of abstracts, there are significant variations between the informative and the indicative abstract. A set of criteria for the writing of an acceptable abstract of science literature was derived. The adequacy of these criteria is still to be validated, and the athors' plans for fututre research in this area are specified

6.2377297E-4 = product of:
  0.009356594 = sum of:
    0.009356594 = weight(_text_:in in 3677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009356594 = score(doc=3677,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 3677, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3677)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Compares formats and linguistic devices of German abstracts and their English equivalents, written by German medical scholars to English native speakers. The source is 20 abstracts taken from German medical journals representing different degrees of specialism. The analysis includes: the overall length of articles/abstracts; the representation/arrangement of sections; the linguistic devices. Results show no correlation between the length of articles and the length of abstracts. In contrast to native speaking author abstracts, 'background information' predominated in the structure of the studied German non-native speaker abstracts, whereas 'purpose of study' and 'conclusions' were not clearly stated. In linguistic terms, the German abstracts frequently contained lexical hegdes, complex and enumerating sentence structure; passive voice and post tense as well as various types of linking structures

6.2377297E-4 = product of:
  0.009356594 = sum of:
    0.009356594 = weight(_text_:in in 6233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009356594 = score(doc=6233,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 6233, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6233)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

6.2377297E-4 = product of:
  0.009356594 = sum of:
    0.009356594 = weight(_text_:in in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009356594 = score(doc=752,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Content

Enthält folgende Kapitel: Pre-coordinate indexes; consistency of indexing: quality of indexing; abstracts: types and functions, writing the abstract, natural language in information retrieval, automatic indexing. There are exercises in both indexing and abstracting procedures

Footnote

Rez. in: Library and information science resaerch 14(1992) no.1, S.117-118 (C. Tenopir); International classification 19(1992) no.4, S.227-228 (R. Fugmann); Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43(1992) no.6, S.456 (B.R. Boyce); Cataloging & classification quarterly 15(1992) no.1, S.245-247 (E.M. Rasmussen) Journal of academic librarianship 18(1992) no.1, S.39 (G.A. Crawford) // Winner of the 1992 ASIS best information science book award

6.2377297E-4 = product of:
  0.009356594 = sum of:
    0.009356594 = weight(_text_:in in 3610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009356594 = score(doc=3610,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 3610, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3610)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to argue for a conception of information literacy (IL) that goes beyond the abilities of finding information as it includes communication skills. An important issue in this is that abstractors exercise IL on a professional level. Design/methodology/approach - By stressing the importance of the fact that information literacy extends towards verbal communication the paper takes an interdisciplinary approach, the main component of which is linguistics. Findings - It is found that verbal communication and especially analytic-synthetic writing activities play an important role in information literacy at the level of everyday language use, semi-professional and professional summarising of information. The latter level characterises abstracting. Originality/value - The paper adds to the body of knowledge about information literacy in general and in connection with communication and abstracting.

6.173752E-4 = product of:
  0.009260627 = sum of:
    0.009260627 = weight(_text_:in in 684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009260627 = score(doc=684,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 684, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=684)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

A survey of abstracting policies by producers of bibliographical databases examined abstracting guidelines which aim to enhance free- text retrieval. Of the 123 database policies examined, fifty-seven (46 per cent) included such instructions. Editors consider contents of abstracts and their language as a primary factor in retrieval enhancement. Most recommend that once abstractors decide which concepts to include in abstracts and in which form to represent them, these terms should be co-ordinated with index terms assigned from a controlled vocabulary. Guidelines about the type of abstracts, i.e., informative or indicative, and about their length are not affected by the capability of free-text retrieval

5.9777097E-4 = product of:
  0.008966564 = sum of:
    0.008966564 = weight(_text_:in in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008966564 = score(doc=119,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Indexing and abstracting are not activities that should be looked upon as ends in themselves. It is the results of these activities that should be evaluated and this can only be done within the context of a particular database, whether in printed or machine-readable form. In this context, the indexing can be judged successful if it allows searchers to locate items they want without having to look at many they do not want. This book intended primarily as a text to be used in teaching indexing and abstracting of Library and information science. It is an immense value to all individuals and institutions involved in information retrieval and related activities, including librarians, managers of information centres and database producers.

5.9777097E-4 = product of:
  0.008966564 = sum of:
    0.008966564 = weight(_text_:in in 3788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008966564 = score(doc=3788,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 3788, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3788)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

We address the challenge of extracting query biased audio summaries from podcasts to support users in making relevance decisions in spoken document search via an audio-only communication channel. We performed a crowdsourced experiment that demonstrates that transcripts of spoken documents created using Automated Speech Recognition (ASR), even with significant errors, are effective sources of document summaries or "snippets" for supporting users in making relevance judgments against a query. In particular, the results show that summaries generated from ASR transcripts are comparable, in utility and user-judged preference, to spoken summaries generated from error-free manual transcripts of the same collection. We also observed that content-based audio summaries are at least as preferred as synthesized summaries obtained from manually curated metadata, such as title and description. We describe a methodology for constructing a new test collection, which we have made publicly available.

5.4020324E-4 = product of:
  0.008103048 = sum of:
    0.008103048 = weight(_text_:in in 85) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008103048 = score(doc=85,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 85, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=85)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Clear guidelines have been provided for structuring the abstracts of original research and review articles and, in the past 10 years, several major medical periodicals have adopted the policy of including such abstracts with all their articles. A review of the literature reveals that proponents claim that structured abstracts enhance peer review, improve information retrieval, and ease critical appraisal. However, some periodicals have not adopted structured abstracts and their opponents claim that they make articles longer and harder to read and restrict author originality. Concludes that previous research on structured abstracts focused on how closely they followed prescribed structure and include salient points of the full text, rather than their role in increasing the usefulness of the article

5.4020324E-4 = product of:
  0.008103048 = sum of:
    0.008103048 = weight(_text_:in in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008103048 = score(doc=701,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Comments on the value of abstracts or summary notes to information available online via the Internet and WWW and concludes that automated abstracting techniques would be highly useful if routinely applied to cataloguing or metadata for Internet documents and documents in other databases. Information seekers need external summary information to assess content and value of retrieved documents. Examines traditional models for writers, in library audiovisual cataloguing, periodical databases and archival work, along with innovative new model databases featuring robust cataloguing summaries. Notes recent developments in automated techniques, computational research, and machine summarization of digital images. Recommendations are made for future designers of cataloguing and metadata standards

5.4020324E-4 = product of:
  0.008103048 = sum of:
    0.008103048 = weight(_text_:in in 3295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008103048 = score(doc=3295,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 3295, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3295)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Reports on one area of research in an Electronic Libraries Programme (eLib) MODELS (MOving to Distributed Environments for Library Services) supporting study in 3 investigative areas: examination of current database producers' guidelines for their abstract writers; a brief survey of abstracts in some traditional online databases; and a detailed survey of abstracts from 3 types of electronic database (print sourced online databases, Internet subject trees or directories, and Internet gateways). Examination of database producers' guidelines, reported here, gave a clear view of the intentions behind professionally produced traditional (printed index based) database abstracts and provided a benchmark against which to judge the conclusions of the larger investigations into abstract style, readability and content

5.346625E-4 = product of:
  0.008019937 = sum of:
    0.008019937 = weight(_text_:in in 8867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008019937 = score(doc=8867,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 8867, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8867)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

As a result of the transition to full-text storage, multimedia and networking, information systems are becoming more efficient but at the same time more difficult to use, in particular because users are confronted with information volumes that increasingly exceed individual processing capacities. Consequently, there is an increase in the demand for user aids such as summarising techniques. Against this background, the interdisciplinary Dagstuhl Seminar 'Summarising Text for Intelligent Communication' (Dec. 1993) outlined the academic state of the art with regard to summarising (abstracting) and proposed future directions for research and system development. Research is currently shifting its attention from text summarising to summarising states of affairs. Recycling solutions are put forward in order to satisfy short-term needs for summarisation products. In the medium and long term, it is necessary to devise concepts and methods of intelligent summarising which have a better formal and empirical grounding and a more modular organisation

5.346625E-4 = product of:
  0.008019937 = sum of:
    0.008019937 = weight(_text_:in in 4141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008019937 = score(doc=4141,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 4141, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4141)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Content

Enthält die Kapitel: Indexing principles, Indexing practice, Precoordinate indexes, Consistency of indexing, Quality of indexing, Abstracts: types and functions, Writing the Abstract, Evaluation aspects, Approaches used in indexing and abstracting services, Enhancing the indexing, On the indexing and abstracting of imaginative works, Indexing multimedia sources, Texte searching, Automatic indexing, automatic abstracting, and related procedures, Indexing and the Internet, The future of indexing and abstracting, exercises in indexing and abstracting

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIS 50(1999) no.8, S.728-730 (J.-E. Mai); Indexer 21(1999) no.3, S.148 (P.F. Booth); Managing information 6(1999) no.1, S.48 (S.T. Clarke); Electronic library 17(1999) no.3, S.193 (F. Parry)

5.040847E-4 = product of:
  0.00756127 = sum of:
    0.00756127 = weight(_text_:in in 689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00756127 = score(doc=689,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 689, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=689)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Content

Enthält u.a. die Beiträge: BAKER, D.B.: Abstracting and indexing services: past, present, and future; KENNEDY, H.E.: A perspective on fifteen years in the abstracting and indexing field; WEIL, B.H.: Will abstracts survive technological developments? and will "cheaper is better" win out?; KILGOUR, F.G.: Comparative development of abstracting and indexing, and monograph cataloging; ROWLETT, R.J.: Abstracts, who needs them?

5.040847E-4 = product of:
  0.00756127 = sum of:
    0.00756127 = weight(_text_:in in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00756127 = score(doc=2536,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Reports on a comparison of the "content categories" listed in the ANSI/ISO abstracting standards to actual content found in abstracts from the sciences, social sciences, and the humanities. The preliminary findings question the fundamental concept underlying these standards, namely, that any one set of standards and generalized instructions can describe and elicit the optimal configuration for abstracts from all subject areas

5.040847E-4 = product of:
  0.00756127 = sum of:
    0.00756127 = weight(_text_:in in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00756127 = score(doc=764,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Presents a structured abstract of the actual article. Outlines the debate on the value of structured abstracts and describes a research project into their use, which investigated records of cardiovascular disease downloaded from MEDLINE and tested against clinical questions derived from a survey of CD-ROM use in 3 health science libraries. It was found that structured abstracts improve precision at the expense of recall and place heavier demands on the skills of selecting fields to search within the abstract. Indicates directions for further research

4.9814244E-4 = product of:
  0.007472136 = sum of:
    0.007472136 = weight(_text_:in in 807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007472136 = score(doc=807,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 807, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=807)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Purpose - The literature on abstracts recommends the revision of author supplied abstracts before their inclusion in database collections. However, little guidance is given on how to carry out such revision, and few studies exist on this topic. The purpose of this research paper is to first survey 187 bibliographic databases to ascertain how many did revise abstracts, and then study the practical amendments made by one of these, i.e. LISA (Library and Information Science Abstracts). Design/methodology/approach - Database policies were established by e-mail or through alternative sources, with 136 databases out of 187 exhaustively documented. Differences between 100 author-supplied abstracts and the corresponding 100 LISA amended abstracts were classified into sentence-level and beyond sentence-level categories, and then as additions, deletions and rephrasing of text. Findings - Revision of author abstracts was carried out by 66 databases, but in just 32 cases did it imply more than spelling, shortening of length and formula representation. In LISA, amendments were often non-systematic and inconsistent, but still pointed to significant aspects which were discussed. Originality/value - Amendments made by LISA editors are important in multi- and inter-disciplinary research, since they tend to clarify certain aspects such as terminology, and suggest that abstracts should not always be considered as substitutes for the original document. From this point-of-view, the revision of abstracts can be considered as an important factor in enhancing a database's quality.

4.6303135E-4 = product of:
  0.00694547 = sum of:
    0.00694547 = weight(_text_:in in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00694547 = score(doc=688,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Summarizing is the process of reducing the large information size of something like a novel or a scientific paper to a short summary or abstract comprising only the most essential points. Summarizing is frequent in everyday communication, but it is also a professional skill for journalists and others. Automated summarizing functions are urgently needed by Internet users who wish to avoid being overwhelmed by information. This book presents the state of the art and surveys related research; it deals with everyday and professional summarizing as well as computerized approaches. The author focuses in detail on the cognitive pro-cess involved in summarizing and supports this with a multimedia simulation systems on the accompanying CD-ROM