-
Wan, X.; Yang, J.; Xiao, J.: Incorporating cross-document relationships between sentences for single document summarizations (2006)
0.03
0.025035713 = product of:
0.050071426 = sum of:
0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031038022 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 2421, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2421)
0.019033402 = product of:
0.038066804 = sum of:
0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038066804 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = 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)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; Blurton, A.: Obtaining information accurately and quickly : are structured abstracts more efficient? (1996)
0.02
0.020863095 = product of:
0.04172619 = sum of:
0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02586502 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
0.01586117 = product of:
0.03172234 = sum of:
0.03172234 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03172234 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 7673, 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=7673)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Reports results of 2 studies to determine if structured abstracts offer any advantage to users in terms of whether they are easier to search. In study 1, using a specially prepared electronic database of abstracts in either their original format or the structured format, 52 users were asked to find the answers to 2 questions for each of 8 abstracts in traditional format followed by 2 questions for each of 8 abstracts set in the structured format. Time and error data were recorded automatically. In study 2, using a printed database, 56 users were asked to to find 5 abstracts that reprted a particular kind of study and then find 5 more references that reported another kind of study. In study 1 users performed significantly faster and made fewer errors with structured abstracts but there were some unexplainable practice effects. In study 2, the users again performed significantly faster and made fewer errors with structured abstracts. However, there were asymmetrical transfer effects: users who responded first to the structured abstracts responded more quickly to the following traditional abstracts than did those users who responded first to the traditional abstracts. Nevertheless, the overall findings support the hypothesis that it is easier for user to search structured abstracts than it is to search traditional abstracts
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356
-
Summarizing text : [Themenheft] (1995)
0.02
0.016956951 = product of:
0.067827806 = sum of:
0.067827806 = product of:
0.13565561 = sum of:
0.13565561 = weight(_text_:processing in 3872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13565561 = score(doc=3872,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.7156181 = fieldWeight in 3872, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3872)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.5, S.625-784
-
Endres-Niggemeyer, B.; Maier, E.; Sigel, A.: How to implement a naturalistic model of abstracting : four core working steps of an expert abstractor (1995)
0.01
0.010491579 = product of:
0.041966315 = sum of:
0.041966315 = product of:
0.08393263 = sum of:
0.08393263 = weight(_text_:processing in 2930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08393263 = score(doc=2930,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.4427661 = fieldWeight in 2930, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2930)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- 4 working steps taken from a comprehensive empirical model of expert abstracting are studied in order to prepare an explorative implementation of a simulation model. It aims at explaining the knowledge processing activities during professional summarizing. Following the case-based and holistic strategy of qualitative empirical research, the main features of the simulation system were developed by investigating in detail a small but central test case - 4 working steps where an expert abstractor discovers what the paper is about and drafts the topic sentence of the abstract
- Source
- Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.5, S.631-674
-
Molina, M.P.: Documentary abstracting : toward a methodological approach (1995)
0.01
0.0103460075 = product of:
0.04138403 = sum of:
0.04138403 = weight(_text_:data in 1790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04138403 = score(doc=1790,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 1790, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1790)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- In the general abstracting process (GAP), there are 2 types of data: textual, within a particular framed trilogy (surface, deep, and rhetoric); and documentary (abstractor, means of production, and user demands). Proposes its development, the use of the following disciplines, among others: linguistics (structural, tranformational, and textual), logic (formal and fuzzy), and psychology (cognitive). The model for that textual transformation is based on a system of combined strategies with 4 key stages: reading understanding, selection, interpretation, and synthesis
-
Farrow, J.: All in the mind : concept analysis in indexing (1995)
0.01
0.008478476 = product of:
0.033913903 = sum of:
0.033913903 = product of:
0.067827806 = sum of:
0.067827806 = weight(_text_:processing in 2926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.067827806 = score(doc=2926,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.35780904 = fieldWeight in 2926, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2926)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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
-
Cremmins, E.T.: ¬The art of abstracting (1996)
0.01
0.008478476 = product of:
0.033913903 = sum of:
0.033913903 = product of:
0.067827806 = sum of:
0.067827806 = weight(_text_:processing in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.067827806 = score(doc=1007,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.35780904 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Journal of chemical information and computer sciences 36(1996) no.5, S.1050 (V.K. Raman); Information processing and management 33(1997) no.4, S.573 (H.R. Tibbo)
-
Koltay, T.: ¬A hypertext tutorial on abstracting for library science students (1995)
0.01
0.007930585 = product of:
0.03172234 = sum of:
0.03172234 = product of:
0.06344468 = sum of:
0.06344468 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06344468 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 27. 1.1996 18:22:06
-
Busch-Lauer, I.-A.: Abstracts in German medical journals : a linguistic analysis (1995)
0.01
0.007418666 = product of:
0.029674664 = sum of:
0.029674664 = product of:
0.05934933 = sum of:
0.05934933 = weight(_text_:processing in 3677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05934933 = score(doc=3677,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 3677, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3677)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.5, S.769-776
-
Rothkegel, A.: Abstracting from the perspective of text production (1995)
0.01
0.007418666 = product of:
0.029674664 = sum of:
0.029674664 = product of:
0.05934933 = sum of:
0.05934933 = weight(_text_:processing in 3740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05934933 = score(doc=3740,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 3740, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3740)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.5, S.777-784
-
Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: Revising and polishing a structured abstract : is it worth the time and effort? (2008)
0.01
0.006466255 = product of:
0.02586502 = sum of:
0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02586502 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Many writers of structured abstracts spend a good deal of time revising and polishing their texts - but is it worth it? Do readers notice the difference? In this paper we report three studies of readers using rating scales to judge (electronically) the clarity of an original and a revised abstract, both as a whole and in its constituent parts. In Study 1, with approximately 250 academics and research workers, we found some significant differences in favor of the revised abstract, but in Study 2, with approximately 210 information scientists, we found no significant effects. Pooling the data from Studies 1 and 2, however, in Study 3, led to significant differences at a higher probability level between the perception of the original and revised abstract as a whole and between the same components as found in Study 1. These results thus indicate that the revised abstract as a whole, as well as certain specific components of it, were judged significantly clearer than the original one. In short, the results of these experiments show that readers can and do perceive differences between original and revised texts - sometimes - and that therefore these efforts are worth the time and effort.
-
Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: Summarising text for intelligent communication : results of the Dagstuhl seminar (1994)
0.01
0.0063588563 = product of:
0.025435425 = sum of:
0.025435425 = product of:
0.05087085 = sum of:
0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 8867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05087085 = score(doc=8867,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 8867, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8867)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- As a result of the transition to full-text storage, multimedia and networking, information systems are becoming more efficient but at the same time more difficult to use, in particular because users are confronted with information volumes that increasingly exceed individual processing capacities. Consequently, there is an increase in the demand for user aids such as summarising techniques. Against this background, the interdisciplinary Dagstuhl Seminar 'Summarising Text for Intelligent Communication' (Dec. 1993) outlined the academic state of the art with regard to summarising (abstracting) and proposed future directions for research and system development. Research is currently shifting its attention from text summarising to summarising states of affairs. Recycling solutions are put forward in order to satisfy short-term needs for summarisation products. In the medium and long term, it is necessary to devise concepts and methods of intelligent summarising which have a better formal and empirical grounding and a more modular organisation
-
Palais, E.S.: Abstracting for reference librarians (1988)
0.01
0.006344468 = product of:
0.025377871 = sum of:
0.025377871 = product of:
0.050755743 = sum of:
0.050755743 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050755743 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2832, 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=2832)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Reference librarian. 1988, no.22, S.297-308
-
Wang, F.L.; Yang, C.C.: ¬The impact analysis of language differences on an automatic multilingual text summarization system (2006)
0.01
0.005299047 = product of:
0.021196188 = sum of:
0.021196188 = product of:
0.042392377 = sum of:
0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042392377 = score(doc=5049,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 5049, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5049)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Based on the salient features of the documents, automatic text summarization systems extract the key sentences from source documents. This process supports the users in evaluating the relevance of the extracted documents returned by information retrieval systems. Because of this tool, efficient filtering can be achieved. Indirectly, these systems help to resolve the problem of information overloading. Many automatic text summarization systems have been implemented for use with different languages. It has been established that the grammatical and lexical differences between languages have a significant effect on text processing. However, the impact of the language differences on the automatic text summarization systems has not yet been investigated. The authors provide an impact analysis of language difference on automatic text summarization. It includes the effect on the extraction processes, the scoring mechanisms, the performance, and the matching of the extracted sentences, using the parallel corpus in English and Chinese as the tested object. The analysis results provide a greater understanding of language differences and promote the future development of more advanced text summarization techniques.
-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Which layout do you prefer? : an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts (1996)
0.00
0.0047583506 = product of:
0.019033402 = sum of:
0.019033402 = product of:
0.038066804 = sum of:
0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038066804 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4411, 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=4411)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37
-
Ward, M.L.: ¬The future of the human indexer (1996)
0.00
0.0047583506 = product of:
0.019033402 = sum of:
0.019033402 = product of:
0.038066804 = sum of:
0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038066804 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7244, 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=7244)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 9. 2.1997 18:44:22
