Search (100 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Automatisches Abstracting"
  1. Nomoto, T.: Discriminative sentence compression with conditional random fields (2007) 0.05
    0.04693188 = product of:
      0.09386376 = sum of:
        0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025048172 = score(doc=945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 945, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=945)
        0.036299463 = weight(_text_:use in 945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036299463 = score(doc=945,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2870708 = fieldWeight in 945, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=945)
        0.017710768 = weight(_text_:of in 945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017710768 = score(doc=945,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 945, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=945)
        0.014805362 = product of:
          0.029610723 = sum of:
            0.029610723 = weight(_text_:on in 945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.029610723 = score(doc=945,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.32602316 = fieldWeight in 945, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=945)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    The paper focuses on a particular approach to automatic sentence compression which makes use of a discriminative sequence classifier known as Conditional Random Fields (CRF). We devise several features for CRF that allow it to incorporate information on nonlinear relations among words. Along with that, we address the issue of data paucity by collecting data from RSS feeds available on the Internet, and turning them into training data for use with CRF, drawing on techniques from biology and information retrieval. We also discuss a recursive application of CRF on the syntactic structure of a sentence as a way of improving the readability of the compression it generates. Experiments found that our approach works reasonably well compared to the state-of-the-art system [Knight, K., & Marcu, D. (2002). Summarization beyond sentence extraction: A probabilistic approach to sentence compression. Artificial Intelligence 139, 91-107.].
  2. Robin, J.; McKeown, K.: Empirically designing and evaluating a new revision-based model for summary generation (1996) 0.04
    0.043646857 = product of:
      0.087293714 = sum of:
        0.03422346 = weight(_text_:use in 6751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03422346 = score(doc=6751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 6751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6751)
        0.021862645 = weight(_text_:of in 6751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021862645 = score(doc=6751,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 6751, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6751)
        0.008828212 = product of:
          0.017656423 = sum of:
            0.017656423 = weight(_text_:on in 6751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017656423 = score(doc=6751,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 6751, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6751)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.0223794 = product of:
          0.0447588 = sum of:
            0.0447588 = weight(_text_:22 in 6751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0447588 = score(doc=6751,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6751, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6751)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    Presents a system for summarizing quantitative data in natural language, focusing on the use of a corpus of basketball game summaries, drawn from online news services, to empirically shape the system design and to evaluate the approach. Initial corpus analysis revealed characteristics of textual summaries that challenge the capabilities of current language generation systems. A revision based corpus analysis was used to identify and encode the revision rules of the system. Presents a quantitative evaluation, using several test corpora, to measure the robustness of the new revision based model
    Date
    6. 3.1997 16:22:15
  3. Atanassova, I.; Bertin, M.; Larivière, V.: On the composition of scientific abstracts (2016) 0.04
    0.041696787 = product of:
      0.083393574 = sum of:
        0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020873476 = score(doc=3028,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3028, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3028)
        0.030249555 = weight(_text_:use in 3028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030249555 = score(doc=3028,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 3028, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3028)
        0.02675291 = weight(_text_:of in 3028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02675291 = score(doc=3028,freq=46.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.41429368 = fieldWeight in 3028, product of:
              6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
                46.0 = termFreq=46.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3028)
        0.0055176322 = product of:
          0.0110352645 = sum of:
            0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 3028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0110352645 = score(doc=3028,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 3028, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3028)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - Scientific abstracts reproduce only part of the information and the complexity of argumentation in a scientific article. The purpose of this paper provides a first analysis of the similarity between the text of scientific abstracts and the body of articles, using sentences as the basic textual unit. It contributes to the understanding of the structure of abstracts. Design/methodology/approach - Using sentence-based similarity metrics, the authors quantify the phenomenon of text re-use in abstracts and examine the positions of the sentences that are similar to sentences in abstracts in the introduction, methods, results and discussion structure, using a corpus of over 85,000 research articles published in the seven Public Library of Science journals. Findings - The authors provide evidence that 84 percent of abstract have at least one sentence in common with the body of the paper. Studying the distributions of sentences in the body of the articles that are re-used in abstracts, the authors show that there exists a strong relation between the rhetorical structure of articles and the zones that authors re-use when writing abstracts, with sentences mainly coming from the beginning of the introduction and the end of the conclusion. Originality/value - Scientific abstracts contain what is considered by the author(s) as information that best describe documents' content. This is a first study that examines the relation between the contents of abstracts and the rhetorical structure of scientific articles. The work might provide new insight for improving automatic abstracting tools as well as information retrieval approaches, in which text organization and structure are important features.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 72(2016) no.4, S.636-647
  4. Jones, S.; Paynter, G.W.: Automatic extractionof document keyphrases for use in digital libraries : evaluations and applications (2002) 0.04
    0.037140504 = product of:
      0.07428101 = sum of:
        0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020873476 = score(doc=601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=601)
        0.030249555 = weight(_text_:use in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030249555 = score(doc=601,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 601, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=601)
        0.017640345 = weight(_text_:of in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017640345 = score(doc=601,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 601, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=601)
        0.0055176322 = product of:
          0.0110352645 = sum of:
            0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0110352645 = score(doc=601,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 601, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=601)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.8, S.653-677
  5. Jones, P.A.; Bradbeer, P.V.G.: Discovery of optimal weights in a concept selection system (1996) 0.03
    0.03358817 = product of:
      0.08956846 = sum of:
        0.047231287 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047231287 = score(doc=6974,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 6974, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6974)
        0.019957775 = weight(_text_:of in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019957775 = score(doc=6974,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 6974, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6974)
        0.0223794 = product of:
          0.0447588 = sum of:
            0.0447588 = weight(_text_:22 in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0447588 = score(doc=6974,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6974, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6974)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Describes the application of weighting strategies to model uncertainties and probabilities in automatic abstracting systems, particularly in the concept selection phase. The weights were originally assigned in an ad hoc manner and were then refined by manual analysis of the results. The new method attempts to derive a more systematic methods and performs this using a genetic algorithm
    Source
    Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon
  6. Oh, H.; Nam, S.; Zhu, Y.: Structured abstract summarization of scientific articles : summarization using full-text section information (2023) 0.03
    0.032392412 = product of:
      0.064784825 = sum of:
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
        0.021604925 = weight(_text_:of in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021604925 = score(doc=889,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
        0.007803111 = product of:
          0.015606222 = sum of:
            0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015606222 = score(doc=889,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.013987125 = product of:
          0.02797425 = sum of:
            0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02797425 = score(doc=889,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 889, 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=889)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    The automatic summarization of scientific articles differs from other text genres because of the structured format and longer text length. Previous approaches have focused on tackling the lengthy nature of scientific articles, aiming to improve the computational efficiency of summarizing long text using a flat, unstructured abstract. However, the structured format of scientific articles and characteristics of each section have not been fully explored, despite their importance. The lack of a sufficient investigation and discussion of various characteristics for each section and their influence on summarization results has hindered the practical use of automatic summarization for scientific articles. To provide a balanced abstract proportionally emphasizing each section of a scientific article, the community introduced the structured abstract, an abstract with distinct, labeled sections. Using this information, in this study, we aim to understand tasks ranging from data preparation to model evaluation from diverse viewpoints. Specifically, we provide a preprocessed large-scale dataset and propose a summarization method applying the introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRaD) format reflecting the characteristics of each section. We also discuss the objective benchmarks and perspectives of state-of-the-art algorithms and present the challenges and research directions in this area.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:57:12
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.234-248
  7. Kim, H.H.; Kim, Y.H.: Generic speech summarization of transcribed lecture videos : using tags and their semantic relations (2016) 0.03
    0.029699406 = product of:
      0.05939881 = sum of:
        0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020873476 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
        0.0167351 = weight(_text_:of in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0167351 = score(doc=2640,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
        0.007803111 = product of:
          0.015606222 = sum of:
            0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015606222 = score(doc=2640,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.013987125 = product of:
          0.02797425 = sum of:
            0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02797425 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2640, 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=2640)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    We propose a tag-based framework that simulates human abstractors' ability to select significant sentences based on key concepts in a sentence as well as the semantic relations between key concepts to create generic summaries of transcribed lecture videos. The proposed extractive summarization method uses tags (viewer- and author-assigned terms) as key concepts. Our method employs Flickr tag clusters and WordNet synonyms to expand tags and detect the semantic relations between tags. This method helps select sentences that have a greater number of semantically related key concepts. To investigate the effectiveness and uniqueness of the proposed method, we compare it with an existing technique, latent semantic analysis (LSA), using intrinsic and extrinsic evaluations. The results of intrinsic evaluation show that the tag-based method is as or more effective than the LSA method. We also observe that in the extrinsic evaluation, the grand mean accuracy score of the tag-based method is higher than that of the LSA method, with a statistically significant difference. Elaborating on our results, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our findings for speech video summarization and retrieval.
    Date
    22. 1.2016 12:29:41
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.366-379
  8. Jiang, Y.; Meng, R.; Huang, Y.; Lu, W.; Liu, J.: Generating keyphrases for readers : a controllable keyphrase generation framework (2023) 0.03
    0.028711341 = product of:
      0.057422683 = sum of:
        0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020873476 = score(doc=1012,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
        0.014758972 = weight(_text_:of in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014758972 = score(doc=1012,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
        0.007803111 = product of:
          0.015606222 = sum of:
            0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015606222 = score(doc=1012,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.013987125 = product of:
          0.02797425 = sum of:
            0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02797425 = score(doc=1012,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1012, 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=1012)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    With the wide application of keyphrases in many Information Retrieval (IR) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, automatic keyphrase prediction has been emerging. However, these statistically important phrases are contributing increasingly less to the related tasks because the end-to-end learning mechanism enables models to learn the important semantic information of the text directly. Similarly, keyphrases are of little help for readers to quickly grasp the paper's main idea because the relationship between the keyphrase and the paper is not explicit to readers. Therefore, we propose to generate keyphrases with specific functions for readers to bridge the semantic gap between them and the information producers, and verify the effectiveness of the keyphrase function for assisting users' comprehension with a user experiment. A controllable keyphrase generation framework (the CKPG) that uses the keyphrase function as a control code to generate categorized keyphrases is proposed and implemented based on Transformer, BART, and T5, respectively. For the Computer Science domain, the Macro-avgs of , , and on the Paper with Code dataset are up to 0.680, 0.535, and 0.558, respectively. Our experimental results indicate the effectiveness of the CKPG models.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 14:55:20
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.759-774
  9. Xianghao, G.; Yixin, Z.; Li, Y.: ¬A new method of news test understanding and abstracting based on speech acts theory (1998) 0.03
    0.025611179 = product of:
      0.06829648 = sum of:
        0.03422346 = weight(_text_:use in 3532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03422346 = score(doc=3532,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 3532, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3532)
        0.025244808 = weight(_text_:of in 3532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025244808 = score(doc=3532,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 3532, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3532)
        0.008828212 = product of:
          0.017656423 = sum of:
            0.017656423 = weight(_text_:on in 3532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017656423 = score(doc=3532,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 3532, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3532)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Presents a method for the automated analysis and comprehension of foreign affairs news produced by a Chinese news agency. Notes that the development of the method was prededed by a study of the structuring rules of the news. Describes how an abstract of the news story is produced automatically from the analysis. Stresses the main aim of the work which is to use specch act theory to analyse and classify sentences
    Source
    Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information. 17(1998) no.4, S.257-262
  10. Uyttendaele, C.; Moens, M.-F.; Dumortier, J.: SALOMON: automatic abstracting of legal cases for effective access to court decisions (1998) 0.02
    0.023609659 = product of:
      0.06295909 = sum of:
        0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029945528 = score(doc=495,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 495, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=495)
        0.022089208 = weight(_text_:of in 495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022089208 = score(doc=495,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 495, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=495)
        0.010924355 = product of:
          0.02184871 = sum of:
            0.02184871 = weight(_text_:on in 495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02184871 = score(doc=495,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 495, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=495)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    The SALOMON project summarises Belgian criminal cases in order to improve access to the large number of existing and future cases. A double methodology was used when developing SALOMON: the cases are processed by employing additional knowledge to interpret structural patterns and features on the one hand and by way of occurrence statistics of index terms on the other. SALOMON performs an initial categorisation and structuring of the cases and subsequently extracts the most relevant text units of the alleged offences and of the opinion of the court. The SALOMON techniques do not themselves solve any legal questions, but they do guide the use effectively towards relevant texts
  11. Moens, M.F.; Dumortier, J.: Use of a text grammar for generating highlight abstracts of magazine articles (2000) 0.02
    0.022912258 = product of:
      0.061099354 = sum of:
        0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029945528 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 4540, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4540)
        0.02342914 = weight(_text_:of in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02342914 = score(doc=4540,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 4540, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4540)
        0.007724685 = product of:
          0.01544937 = sum of:
            0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01544937 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 4540, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4540)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Browsing a database of article abstracts is one way to select and buy relevant magazine articles online. Our research contributes to the design and development of text grammars for abstracting texts in unlimited subject domains. We developed a system that parses texts based on the text grammar of a specific text type and that extracts sentences and statements which are relevant for inclusion in the abstracts. The system employs knowledge of the discourse patterns that are typical of news stories. The results are encouraging and demonstrate the importance of discourse structures in text summarisation.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 56(2000) no.5, S.520-539
  12. Summarising software for publishing (1996) 0.02
    0.021941585 = product of:
      0.058510896 = sum of:
        0.03422346 = weight(_text_:use in 5121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03422346 = score(doc=5121,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 5121, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5121)
        0.0154592255 = weight(_text_:of in 5121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0154592255 = score(doc=5121,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 5121, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5121)
        0.008828212 = product of:
          0.017656423 = sum of:
            0.017656423 = weight(_text_:on in 5121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017656423 = score(doc=5121,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 5121, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5121)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Reviews 4 software packages designed to provide accurate and indicative summaries of documents by taking the documents and creating distinctive abstracts from them. The products reviewed are: Oracle's ConText; InText's Object Analyzer; Iconovex's AnchorPage; and Software Scientific's Interrogator. Techniques used by the products include: the use of dictionaries of known words and phrases to interpret documents; and heuristic analysis involving weighting all the words in the document solely on their occurrence and position within the document
  13. Rodríguez-Vidal, J.; Carrillo-de-Albornoz, J.; Gonzalo, J.; Plaza, L.: Authority and priority signals in automatic summary generation for online reputation management (2021) 0.02
    0.021865398 = product of:
      0.058307726 = sum of:
        0.030249555 = weight(_text_:use in 213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030249555 = score(doc=213,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 213, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=213)
        0.01850135 = weight(_text_:of in 213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01850135 = score(doc=213,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 213, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=213)
        0.00955682 = product of:
          0.01911364 = sum of:
            0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01911364 = score(doc=213,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 213, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=213)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Online reputation management (ORM) comprises the collection of techniques that help monitoring and improving the public image of an entity (companies, products, institutions) on the Internet. The ORM experts try to minimize the negative impact of the information about an entity while maximizing the positive material for being more trustworthy to the customers. Due to the huge amount of information that is published on the Internet every day, there is a need to summarize the entire flow of information to obtain only those data that are relevant to the entities. Traditionally the automatic summarization task in the ORM scenario takes some in-domain signals into account such as popularity, polarity for reputation and novelty but exists other feature to be considered, the authority of the people. This authority depends on the ability to convince others and therefore to influence opinions. In this work, we propose the use of authority signals that measures the influence of a user jointly with (a) priority signals related to the ORM domain and (b) information regarding the different topics that influential people is talking about. Our results indicate that the use of authority signals may significantly improve the quality of the summaries that are automatically generated.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.5, S.583-594
  14. Ou, S.; Khoo, S.G.; Goh, D.H.: Automatic multidocument summarization of research abstracts : design and user evaluation (2007) 0.02
    0.02181216 = product of:
      0.05816576 = sum of:
        0.030249555 = weight(_text_:use in 522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030249555 = score(doc=522,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 522, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=522)
        0.02011309 = weight(_text_:of in 522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02011309 = score(doc=522,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 522, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=522)
        0.007803111 = product of:
          0.015606222 = sum of:
            0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015606222 = score(doc=522,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 522, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=522)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    The purpose of this study was to develop a method for automatic construction of multidocument summaries of sets of research abstracts that may be retrieved by a digital library or search engine in response to a user query. Sociology dissertation abstracts were selected as the sample domain in this study. A variable-based framework was proposed for integrating and organizing research concepts and relationships as well as research methods and contextual relations extracted from different dissertation abstracts. Based on the framework, a new summarization method was developed, which parses the discourse structure of abstracts, extracts research concepts and relationships, integrates the information across different abstracts, and organizes and presents them in a Web-based interface. The focus of this article is on the user evaluation that was performed to assess the overall quality and usefulness of the summaries. Two types of variable-based summaries generated using the summarization method-with or without the use of a taxonomy-were compared against a sentence-based summary that lists only the research-objective sentences extracted from each abstract and another sentence-based summary generated using the MEAD system that extracts important sentences. The evaluation results indicate that the majority of sociological researchers (70%) and general users (64%) preferred the variable-based summaries generated with the use of the taxonomy.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.10, S.1419-1435
  15. Moens, M.-F.: Summarizing court decisions (2007) 0.02
    0.021603793 = product of:
      0.057610113 = sum of:
        0.029222867 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029222867 = score(doc=954,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 954, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=954)
        0.020662563 = weight(_text_:of in 954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020662563 = score(doc=954,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 954, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=954)
        0.007724685 = product of:
          0.01544937 = sum of:
            0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01544937 = score(doc=954,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 954, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=954)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    In the field of law there is an absolute need for summarizing the texts of court decisions in order to make the content of the cases easily accessible for legal professionals. During the SALOMON and MOSAIC projects we investigated the summarization and retrieval of legal cases. This article presents some of the main findings while integrating the research results of experiments on legal document summarization by other research groups. In addition, we propose novel avenues of research for automatic text summarization, which we currently exploit when summarizing court decisions in the ACILA project. Techniques for automated concept learning and argument recognition are here the most challenging.
  16. Plaza, L.; Stevenson, M.; Díaz, A.: Resolving ambiguity in biomedical text to improve summarization (2012) 0.02
    0.020674974 = product of:
      0.055133265 = sum of:
        0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029945528 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
        0.017463053 = weight(_text_:of in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017463053 = score(doc=2734,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
        0.007724685 = product of:
          0.01544937 = sum of:
            0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01544937 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Access to the vast body of research literature that is now available on biomedicine and related fields can be improved with automatic summarization. This paper describes a summarization system for the biomedical domain that represents documents as graphs formed from concepts and relations in the UMLS Metathesaurus. This system has to deal with the ambiguities that occur in biomedical documents. We describe a variety of strategies that make use of MetaMap and Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD) to accurately map biomedical documents onto UMLS Metathesaurus concepts. Evaluation is carried out using a collection of 150 biomedical scientific articles from the BioMed Central corpus. We find that using WSD improves the quality of the summaries generated.
  17. Galgani, F.; Compton, P.; Hoffmann, A.: Summarization based on bi-directional citation analysis (2015) 0.02
    0.019701757 = product of:
      0.05253802 = sum of:
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 2685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=2685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 2685, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2685)
        0.02011309 = weight(_text_:of in 2685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02011309 = score(doc=2685,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 2685, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2685)
        0.0110352645 = product of:
          0.022070529 = sum of:
            0.022070529 = weight(_text_:on in 2685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022070529 = score(doc=2685,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 2685, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2685)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Automatic document summarization using citations is based on summarizing what others explicitly say about the document, by extracting a summary from text around the citations (citances). While this technique works quite well for summarizing the impact of scientific articles, other genres of documents as well as other types of summaries require different approaches. In this paper, we introduce a new family of methods that we developed for legal documents summarization to generate catchphrases for legal cases (where catchphrases are a form of legal summary). Our methods use both incoming and outgoing citations, and we show how citances can be combined with other elements of cited and citing documents, including the full text of the target document, and catchphrases of cited and citing cases. On a legal summarization corpus, our methods outperform competitive baselines. The combination of full text sentences and catchphrases from cited and citing cases is particularly successful. We also apply and evaluate the methods on scientific paper summarization, where they perform at the level of state-of-the-art techniques. Our family of citation-based summarization methods is powerful and flexible enough to target successfully a range of different domains and summarization tasks.
  18. Díaz, A.; Gervás, P.: User-model based personalized summarization (2007) 0.02
    0.019639079 = product of:
      0.052370876 = sum of:
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=952,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 952, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=952)
        0.02008212 = weight(_text_:of in 952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02008212 = score(doc=952,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 952, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=952)
        0.006621159 = product of:
          0.013242318 = sum of:
            0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013242318 = score(doc=952,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 952, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=952)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    The potential of summary personalization is high, because a summary that would be useless to decide the relevance of a document if summarized in a generic manner, may be useful if the right sentences are selected that match the user interest. In this paper we defend the use of a personalized summarization facility to maximize the density of relevance of selections sent by a personalized information system to a given user. The personalization is applied to the digital newspaper domain and it used a user-model that stores long and short term interests using four reference systems: sections, categories, keywords and feedback terms. On the other side, it is crucial to measure how much information is lost during the summarization process, and how this information loss may affect the ability of the user to judge the relevance of a given document. The results obtained in two personalization systems show that personalized summaries perform better than generic and generic-personalized summaries in terms of identifying documents that satisfy user preferences. We also considered a user-centred direct evaluation that showed a high level of user satisfaction with the summaries.
  19. Craven, T.C.: Abstracts produced using computer assistance (2000) 0.02
    0.017721407 = product of:
      0.047257088 = sum of:
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 4809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=4809,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 4809, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4809)
        0.014968331 = weight(_text_:of in 4809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014968331 = score(doc=4809,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 4809, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4809)
        0.006621159 = product of:
          0.013242318 = sum of:
            0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 4809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013242318 = score(doc=4809,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 4809, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4809)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    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
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.8, S.745-756
  20. Vanderwende, L.; Suzuki, H.; Brockett, J.M.; Nenkova, A.: Beyond SumBasic : task-focused summarization with sentence simplification and lexical expansion (2007) 0.02
    0.0173364 = product of:
      0.0462304 = sum of:
        0.02008212 = weight(_text_:of in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02008212 = score(doc=948,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 948, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=948)
        0.009363732 = product of:
          0.018727465 = sum of:
            0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.018727465 = score(doc=948,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 948, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=948)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.016784549 = product of:
          0.033569098 = sum of:
            0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033569098 = score(doc=948,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = 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)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    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.

Years

Languages

  • e 95
  • d 3
  • chi 2
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 95
  • m 3
  • r 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…