Search (50 results, page 3 of 3)

6.106462E-4 = product of:
  0.0024425848 = sum of:
    0.0024425848 = product of:
      0.007327754 = sum of:
        0.007327754 = weight(_text_:a in 4809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007327754 = score(doc=4809,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4809, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4809)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  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

Type

a

6.106462E-4 = product of:
  0.0024425848 = sum of:
    0.0024425848 = product of:
      0.007327754 = sum of:
        0.007327754 = weight(_text_:a in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007327754 = score(doc=1965,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1965, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1965)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We develop a context-based generic cross-lingual retrieval model that can deal with different language pairs. Our model considers contexts in the query translation process. Contexts in the query as weIl as in the documents based an co-occurrence statistics from different granularity of passages are exploited. We also investigate cross-lingual retrieval of automatic generic summaries. We have implemented our model for two different cross-lingual settings, namely, retrieving Chinese documents from English queries as weIl as retrieving English documents from Chinese queries. Extensive experiments have been conducted an a large-scale parallel corpus enabling studies an retrieval performance for two different cross-lingual settings of full-length documents as weIl as automated summaries.

Type

a

6.106462E-4 = product of:
  0.0024425848 = sum of:
    0.0024425848 = product of:
      0.007327754 = sum of:
        0.007327754 = weight(_text_:a in 942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007327754 = score(doc=942,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 942, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=942)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The high quality evaluation of generated summaries is needed if we are to improve automatic summarization systems. Although human evaluation provides better results than automatic evaluation methods, its cost is huge and it is difficult to reproduce the results. Therefore, we need an automatic method that simulates human evaluation if we are to improve our summarization system efficiently. Although automatic evaluation methods have been proposed, they are unreliable when used for individual summaries. To solve this problem, we propose a supervised automatic evaluation method based on a new regression model called the voted regression model (VRM). VRM has two characteristics: (1) model selection based on 'corrected AIC' to avoid multicollinearity, (2) voting by the selected models to alleviate the problem of overfitting. Evaluation results obtained for TSC3 and DUC2004 show that our method achieved error reductions of about 17-51% compared with conventional automatic evaluation methods. Moreover, our method obtained the highest correlation coefficients in several different experiments.

Type

a

5.875945E-4 = product of:
  0.002350378 = sum of:
    0.002350378 = product of:
      0.007051134 = sum of:
        0.007051134 = weight(_text_:a in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007051134 = score(doc=4667,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4667, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4667)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Type

a

4.985905E-4 = product of:
  0.001994362 = sum of:
    0.001994362 = product of:
      0.005983086 = sum of:
        0.005983086 = weight(_text_:a in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005983086 = score(doc=649,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An evaluation of the Copernic Summarizer, a software for automatically summarizing text in various data formats, is being presented. It shall be assessed if and how the Copernic Summarizer can reasonably be used in the DaimlerChrysler Information Division in order to enhance the quality of its information services. First, an introduction into Automatic Text Summarization is given and the Copernic Summarizer is being presented. Various methods for evaluating Automatic Text Summarization systems and software ergonomics are presented. Two evaluation forms are developed with which the employees of the Information Division shall evaluate the quality and relevance of the extracted keywords and summaries as well as the software's usability. The quality and relevance assessment is done by comparing the original text to the summaries. Finally, a recommendation is given concerning the use of the Copernic Summarizer.

4.985905E-4 = product of:
  0.001994362 = sum of:
    0.001994362 = product of:
      0.005983086 = sum of:
        0.005983086 = weight(_text_:a in 4446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005983086 = score(doc=4446,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4446, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4446)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The technological revolution is affecting the structure, form and content of documents, reducing the effectiveness of traditional abstracts that, to some extent, are inadequate to the new documentary conditions. Aims to show the directions in which abstracting/abstracts can evolve to achieve the necessary adequacy in the new digital environments. Three researching trends are proposed: theoretical, methodological and pragmatic. Theoretically, there are some needs for expanding the document concept, reengineering abstracting and designing interdisciplinary models. Methodologically, the trend is toward the structuring, automating and qualifying of the abstracts. Pragmatically, abstracts networking, combined with alternative and complementary models, open a new and promising horizon. Automating, structuring and qualifying abstracting/abstract offer some short-term prospects for progress. Concludes that reengineering, networking and visualising would be middle-term fruitful areas of research toward the full adequacy of abstracting in the new electronic age.

Type

a

4.700756E-4 = product of:
  0.0018803024 = sum of:
    0.0018803024 = product of:
      0.005640907 = sum of:
        0.005640907 = weight(_text_:a in 3344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005640907 = score(doc=3344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3344, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3344)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Type

a

4.154921E-4 = product of:
  0.0016619684 = sum of:
    0.0016619684 = product of:
      0.0049859053 = sum of:
        0.0049859053 = weight(_text_:a in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049859053 = score(doc=601,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 601, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=601)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article describes an evaluation of the Kea automatic keyphrase extraction algorithm. Document keyphrases are conventionally used as concise descriptors of document content, and are increasingly used in novel ways, including document clustering, searching and browsing interfaces, and retrieval engines. However, it is costly and time consuming to manually assign keyphrases to documents, motivating the development of tools that automatically perform this function. Previous studies have evaluated Kea's performance by measuring its ability to identify author keywords and keyphrases, but this methodology has a number of well-known limitations. The results presented in this article are based on evaluations by human assessors of the quality and appropriateness of Kea keyphrases. The results indicate that, in general, Kea produces keyphrases that are rated positively by human assessors. However, typical Kea settings can degrade performance, particularly those relating to keyphrase length and domain specificity. We found that for some settings, Kea's performance is better than that of similar systems, and that Kea's ranking of extracted keyphrases is effective. We also determined that author-specified keyphrases appear to exhibit an inherent ranking, and that they are rated highly and therefore suitable for use in training and evaluation of automatic keyphrasing systems.

Type

a

4.1131617E-4 = product of:
  0.0016452647 = sum of:
    0.0016452647 = product of:
      0.004935794 = sum of:
        0.004935794 = weight(_text_:a in 954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004935794 = score(doc=954,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 954, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=954)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Type

a

3.5255676E-4 = product of:
  0.001410227 = sum of:
    0.001410227 = product of:
      0.004230681 = sum of:
        0.004230681 = weight(_text_:a in 932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004230681 = score(doc=932,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 932, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=932)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Type

a