Search (22 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Referieren"
  • × language_ss:"d"
  1. Wan, X.; Yang, J.; Xiao, J.: Incorporating cross-document relationships between sentences for single document summarizations (2006) 0.02
    0.022235535 = product of:
      0.04447107 = sum of:
        0.04447107 = sum of:
          0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.007030784 = score(doc=2421,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2421, 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=2421)
          0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.037440285 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2421, 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=2421)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Graph-based ranking algorithms have recently been proposed for single document summarizations and such algorithms evaluate the importance of a sentence by making use of the relationships between sentences in the document in a recursive way. In this paper, we investigate using other related or relevant documents to improve summarization of one single document based on the graph-based ranking algorithm. In addition to the within-document relationships between sentences in the specified document, the cross-document relationships between sentences in different documents are also taken into account in the proposed approach. We evaluate the performance of the proposed approach on DUC 2002 data with the ROUGE metric and results demonstrate that the cross-document relationships between sentences in different but related documents can significantly improve the performance of single document summarization.
    Source
    Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006
    Type
    a
  2. Ickler, T.: Zur Textgattung 'Abstract' (1993) 0.00
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = product of:
          0.01353075 = sum of:
            0.01353075 = weight(_text_:a in 5898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01353075 = score(doc=5898,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.25478977 = fieldWeight in 5898, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=5898)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  3. Farrow, J.: All in the mind : concept analysis in indexing (1995) 0.00
    0.0030255679 = product of:
      0.0060511357 = sum of:
        0.0060511357 = product of:
          0.012102271 = sum of:
            0.012102271 = weight(_text_:a in 2926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.012102271 = score(doc=2926,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 2926, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2926)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The indexing process consists of the comprehension of the document to be indexed, followed by the production of a set of index terms. Differences between academic indexing and back-of-the-book indexing are discussed. Text comprehension is a branch of human information processing, and it is argued that the model of text comprehension and production debeloped by van Dijk and Kintsch can form the basis for a cognitive process model of indexing. Strategies for testing such a model are suggested
    Type
    a
  4. Bienert, F.: Probleme der Annotation in der Öffentlichen Bibliothek (1971) 0.00
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = product of:
          0.0108246 = sum of:
            0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0108246 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  5. Harbeck, R.; Lutterbeck, E.: Inhaltsangaben in der Dokumentation (1968) 0.00
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = product of:
          0.0108246 = sum of:
            0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0108246 = score(doc=690,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 690, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=690)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  6. Liebhart, S.: Für eine dreigeteilte, variable Allzwecknotation (1971) 0.00
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = product of:
          0.0108246 = sum of:
            0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0108246 = score(doc=1007,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  7. Kuhlen, R.: Abstracts, abstracting : intellektuelle und maschinelle Verfahren (1990) 0.00
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = product of:
          0.009471525 = sum of:
            0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 2333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009471525 = score(doc=2333,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2333, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2333)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  8. Heinrich, G.: ¬Die "Allzweck-Annotation" und der annotierte Katalogzetteldienst : offene Fragen und mögliche Alternativen (1971) 0.00
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = product of:
          0.009471525 = sum of:
            0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 4858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009471525 = score(doc=4858,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4858, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4858)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  9. Schott, H.; Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: ¬Ein individuelles prozedurales Modell des Abstracting (1992) 0.00
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = product of:
          0.009471525 = sum of:
            0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 8852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009471525 = score(doc=8852,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 8852, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8852)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  10. Kuhlen, R.: Volltextanalyse zum Zwecke des Abstracting (1983) 0.00
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = product of:
          0.009471525 = sum of:
            0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009471525 = score(doc=447,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 447, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=447)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  11. Gerdel, W.: Anforderungen an Referier Regeln aus Benutzersicht (1983) 0.00
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = product of:
          0.009471525 = sum of:
            0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009471525 = score(doc=448,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 448, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=448)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  12. Eimermacher, M.: Textverstehen im Projekt KIT : kognitive Verfahren zur Informationsextraktion und Zusammenfassung aus Texten (1983) 0.00
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = product of:
          0.009471525 = sum of:
            0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009471525 = score(doc=449,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 449, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=449)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  13. Hahn, U.; Reimer, U.: Informationslinguistische Konzepte der Volltextverarbeitung in TOPIC (1983) 0.00
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = product of:
          0.009471525 = sum of:
            0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009471525 = score(doc=450,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 450, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=450)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  14. Kuhlen, R.: Abstracts, abstracting : intellektuelle und maschinelle Verfahren (1997) 0.00
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = product of:
          0.008118451 = sum of:
            0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 7800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008118451 = score(doc=7800,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 7800, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7800)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  15. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: Kognitive Modellierung des Abstracting (1991) 0.00
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = product of:
          0.008118451 = sum of:
            0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 23) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008118451 = score(doc=23,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 23, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=23)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  16. Neumann-Duscha, I.: Über die Qualität von Referaten (1990) 0.00
    0.001353075 = product of:
      0.00270615 = sum of:
        0.00270615 = product of:
          0.0054123 = sum of:
            0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 8593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0054123 = score(doc=8593,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 8593, 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=8593)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  17. Scholz, M.: Qualitätssicherung von Datenbanken : eine gemeinsame Aufgabe von Autor, Schriftleitung und Dokumentar (1994) 0.00
    0.001353075 = product of:
      0.00270615 = sum of:
        0.00270615 = product of:
          0.0054123 = sum of:
            0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 8971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0054123 = score(doc=8971,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 8971, 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=8971)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  18. Reischer, J.; Lottes, D.; Meier, F.; Stirner, M.: Evaluation von Summarizing-Systemen : Kommerzielle und freie Systeme im Vergleich (2010) 0.00
    0.001353075 = product of:
      0.00270615 = sum of:
        0.00270615 = product of:
          0.0054123 = sum of:
            0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0054123 = score(doc=492,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 492, 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=492)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  19. Ruda, S.: Abstracting: eine Auswahlbibliographie (1992) 0.00
    0.0011839407 = product of:
      0.0023678814 = sum of:
        0.0023678814 = product of:
          0.0047357627 = sum of:
            0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 6603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0047357627 = score(doc=6603,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 6603, 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=6603)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  20. Kuhlen, R.: Informationsaufbereitung III : Referieren (Abstracts - Abstracting - Grundlagen) (2004) 0.00
    0.0011717974 = product of:
      0.0023435948 = sum of:
        0.0023435948 = product of:
          0.0046871896 = sum of:
            0.0046871896 = weight(_text_:a in 2917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0046871896 = score(doc=2917,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.088261776 = fieldWeight in 2917, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2917)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Was ein Abstract (im Folgenden synonym mit Referat oder Kurzreferat gebraucht) ist, legt das American National Standards Institute in einer Weise fest, die sicherlich von den meisten Fachleuten akzeptiert werden kann: "An abstract is defined as an abbreviated, accurate representation of the contents of a document"; fast genauso die deutsche Norm DIN 1426: "Das Kurzreferat gibt kurz und klar den Inhalt des Dokuments wieder." Abstracts gehören zum wissenschaftlichen Alltag. Weitgehend allen Publikationen, zumindest in den naturwissenschaftlichen, technischen, informationsbezogenen oder medizinischen Bereichen, gehen Abstracts voran, "prefe-rably prepared by its author(s) for publication with it". Es gibt wohl keinen Wissenschaftler, der nicht irgendwann einmal ein Abstract geschrieben hätte. Gehört das Erstellen von Abstracts dann überhaupt zur dokumentarischen bzw informationswissenschaftlichen Methodenlehre, wenn es jeder kann? Was macht den informationellen Mehrwert aus, der durch Expertenreferate gegenüber Laienreferaten erzeugt wird? Dies ist nicht so leicht zu beantworten, zumal geeignete Bewertungsverfahren fehlen, die Qualität von Abstracts vergleichend "objektiv" zu messen. Abstracts werden in erheblichem Umfang von Informationsspezialisten erstellt, oft unter der Annahme, dass Autoren selber dafür weniger geeignet sind. Vergegenwärtigen wir uns, was wir über Abstracts und Abstracting wissen. Ein besonders gelungenes Abstract ist zuweilen klarer als der Ursprungstext selber, darf aber nicht mehr Information als dieser enthalten: "Good abstracts are highly structured, concise, and coherent, and are the result of a thorough analysis of the content of the abstracted materials. Abstracts may be more readable than the basis documents, but because of size constraints they rarely equal and never surpass the information content of the basic document". Dies ist verständlich, denn ein "Abstract" ist zunächst nichts anderes als ein Ergebnis des Vorgangs einer Abstraktion. Ohne uns zu sehr in die philosophischen Hintergründe der Abstraktion zu verlieren, besteht diese doch "in der Vernachlässigung von bestimmten Vorstellungsbzw. Begriffsinhalten, von welchen zugunsten anderer Teilinhalte abgesehen, abstrahiert' wird. Sie ist stets verbunden mit einer Fixierung von (interessierenden) Merkmalen durch die aktive Aufmerksamkeit, die unter einem bestimmten pragmatischen Gesichtspunkt als wesentlich' für einen vorgestellten bzw für einen unter einen Begriff fallenden Gegenstand (oder eine Mehrheit von Gegenständen) betrachtet werden". Abstracts reduzieren weniger Begriffsinhalte, sondern Texte bezüglich ihres proportionalen Gehaltes. Borko/ Bernier haben dies sogar quantifiziert; sie schätzen den Reduktionsfaktor auf 1:10 bis 1:12
    Type
    a