Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0039493376 = product of:
  0.01579735 = sum of:
    0.01579735 = product of:
      0.0315947 = sum of:
        0.0315947 = weight(_text_:22 in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0315947 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16332182 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2016 12:29:41

0.003707215 = product of:
  0.01482886 = sum of:
    0.01482886 = product of:
      0.02965772 = sum of:
        0.02965772 = weight(_text_:research in 5400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02965772 = score(doc=5400,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.22288933 = fieldWeight in 5400, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5400)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Beitrag eines Special Issue: Research Information Systems and Science Classifications; including papers from "Trajectories for Research: Fathoming the Promise of the NARCIS Classification," 27-28 September 2018, The Hague, The Netherlands.

0.0036699555 = product of:
  0.014679822 = sum of:
    0.014679822 = product of:
      0.029359644 = sum of:
        0.029359644 = weight(_text_:research in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029359644 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0031456763 = product of:
  0.012582705 = sum of:
    0.012582705 = product of:
      0.02516541 = sum of:
        0.02516541 = weight(_text_:research in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02516541 = score(doc=2700,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 2700, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2700)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The volume of entity-centric structured data grows rapidly on the Web. The description of an entity, composed of property-value pairs (a.k.a. features), has become very large in many applications. To avoid information overload, efforts have been made to automatically select a limited number of features to be shown to the user based on certain criteria, which is called automatic entity summarization. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of extensive studies on how humans rank and select features in practice, which can provide empirical support and inspire future research. In this article, we present a large-scale statistical analysis of the descriptions of entities provided by DBpedia and the abstracts of their corresponding Wikipedia articles, to empirically study, along several different dimensions, which kinds of features are preferable when humans summarize. Implications for automatic entity summarization are drawn from the findings.

0.0026213971 = product of:
  0.010485589 = sum of:
    0.010485589 = product of:
      0.020971177 = sum of:
        0.020971177 = weight(_text_:research in 2693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020971177 = score(doc=2693,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 2693, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2693)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Automatic text summarization has been an active field of research for many years. Several approaches have been proposed, ranging from simple position and word-frequency methods, to learning and graph based algorithms. The advent of human-generated knowledge bases like Wikipedia offer a further possibility in text summarization - they can be used to understand the input text in terms of salient concepts from the knowledge base. In this paper, we study a novel approach that leverages Wikipedia in conjunction with graph-based ranking. Our approach is to first construct a bipartite sentence-concept graph, and then rank the input sentences using iterative updates on this graph. We consider several models for the bipartite graph, and derive convergence properties under each model. Then, we take up personalized and query-focused summarization, where the sentence ranks additionally depend on user interests and queries, respectively. Finally, we present a Wikipedia-based multi-document summarization algorithm. An important feature of the proposed algorithms is that they enable real-time incremental summarization - users can first view an initial summary, and then request additional content if interested. We evaluate the performance of our proposed summarizer using the ROUGE metric, and the results show that leveraging Wikipedia can significantly improve summary quality. We also present results from a user study, which suggests that using incremental summarization can help in better understanding news articles.

0.0026213971 = product of:
  0.010485589 = sum of:
    0.010485589 = product of:
      0.020971177 = sum of:
        0.020971177 = weight(_text_:research in 3028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020971177 = score(doc=3028,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 3028, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3028)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.