Search (30 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Automatisches Abstracting"
  1. Wu, Y.-f.B.; Li, Q.; Bot, R.S.; Chen, X.: Finding nuggets in documents : a machine learning approach (2006) 0.05 
    0.04931235 = product of:
  0.0986247 = sum of:
    0.064335 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 5290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064335 = score(doc=5290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.28785467 = fieldWeight in 5290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5290)
    0.034289695 = product of:
      0.05143454 = sum of:
        0.022378203 = weight(_text_:systems in 5290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022378203 = score(doc=5290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 5290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5290)
        0.029056335 = weight(_text_:22 in 5290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029056335 = score(doc=5290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5290, 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=5290)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Document keyphrases provide a concise summary of a document's content, offering semantic metadata summarizing a document. They can be used in many applications related to knowledge management and text mining, such as automatic text summarization, development of search engines, document clustering, document classification, thesaurus construction, and browsing interfaces. Because only a small portion of documents have keyphrases assigned by authors, and it is time-consuming and costly to manually assign keyphrases to documents, it is necessary to develop an algorithm to automatically generate keyphrases for documents. This paper describes a Keyphrase Identification Program (KIP), which extracts document keyphrases by using prior positive samples of human identified phrases to assign weights to the candidate keyphrases. The logic of our algorithm is: The more keywords a candidate keyphrase contains and the more significant these keywords are, the more likely this candidate phrase is a keyphrase. KIP's learning function can enrich the glossary database by automatically adding new identified keyphrases to the database. KIP's personalization feature will let the user build a glossary database specifically suitable for the area of his/her interest. The evaluation results show that KIP's performance is better than the systems we compared to and that the learning function is effective.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 17:25:48
  2. Jones, S.; Paynter, G.W.: Automatic extractionof document keyphrases for use in digital libraries : evaluations and applications (2002) 0.04 
    0.037442096 = product of:
  0.07488419 = sum of:
    0.064335 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064335 = score(doc=601,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.28785467 = fieldWeight in 601, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=601)
    0.010549186 = product of:
      0.031647556 = sum of:
        0.031647556 = weight(_text_:systems in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031647556 = score(doc=601,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 601, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=601)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article describes an evaluation of the Kea automatic keyphrase extraction algorithm. Document keyphrases are conventionally used as concise descriptors of document content, and are increasingly used in novel ways, including document clustering, searching and browsing interfaces, and retrieval engines. However, it is costly and time consuming to manually assign keyphrases to documents, motivating the development of tools that automatically perform this function. Previous studies have evaluated Kea's performance by measuring its ability to identify author keywords and keyphrases, but this methodology has a number of well-known limitations. The results presented in this article are based on evaluations by human assessors of the quality and appropriateness of Kea keyphrases. The results indicate that, in general, Kea produces keyphrases that are rated positively by human assessors. However, typical Kea settings can degrade performance, particularly those relating to keyphrase length and domain specificity. We found that for some settings, Kea's performance is better than that of similar systems, and that Kea's ranking of extracted keyphrases is effective. We also determined that author-specified keyphrases appear to exhibit an inherent ranking, and that they are rated highly and therefore suitable for use in training and evaluation of automatic keyphrasing systems.
  3. Jones, P.A.; Bradbeer, P.V.G.: Discovery of optimal weights in a concept selection system (1996) 0.02 
    0.016187705 = product of:
  0.06475082 = sum of:
    0.06475082 = product of:
      0.09712622 = sum of:
        0.05063609 = weight(_text_:systems in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05063609 = score(doc=6974,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 6974, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6974)
        0.046490133 = weight(_text_:22 in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046490133 = score(doc=6974,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  4. Robin, J.; McKeown, K.: Empirically designing and evaluating a new revision-based model for summary generation (1996) 0.01 
    0.013715876 = product of:
  0.054863505 = sum of:
    0.054863505 = product of:
      0.082295254 = sum of:
        0.03580512 = weight(_text_:systems in 6751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03580512 = score(doc=6751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 6751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6751)
        0.046490133 = weight(_text_:22 in 6751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046490133 = score(doc=6751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  5. Vanderwende, L.; Suzuki, H.; Brockett, J.M.; Nenkova, A.: Beyond SumBasic : task-focused summarization with sentence simplification and lexical expansion (2007) 0.01 
    0.012140779 = product of:
  0.048563115 = sum of:
    0.048563115 = product of:
      0.07284467 = sum of:
        0.037977066 = weight(_text_:systems in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037977066 = score(doc=948,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 948, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=948)
        0.0348676 = weight(_text_:22 in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0348676 = score(doc=948,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  6. Wang, S.; Koopman, R.: Embed first, then predict (2019) 0.01 
    0.010161275 = product of:
  0.0406451 = sum of:
    0.0406451 = product of:
      0.060967647 = sum of:
        0.031647556 = weight(_text_:systems in 5400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031647556 = score(doc=5400,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 5400, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5400)
        0.029320091 = weight(_text_:29 in 5400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029320091 = score(doc=5400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5400)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Automatic subject prediction is a desirable feature for modern digital library systems, as manual indexing can no longer cope with the rapid growth of digital collections. It is also desirable to be able to identify a small set of entities (e.g., authors, citations, bibliographic records) which are most relevant to a query. This gets more difficult when the amount of data increases dramatically. Data sparsity and model scalability are the major challenges to solving this type of extreme multilabel classification problem automatically. In this paper, we propose to address this problem in two steps: we first embed different types of entities into the same semantic space, where similarity could be computed easily; second, we propose a novel non-parametric method to identify the most relevant entities in addition to direct semantic similarities. We show how effectively this approach predicts even very specialised subjects, which are associated with few documents in the training set and are more problematic for a classifier.
    Date
    29. 9.2019 12:18:42
    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.
  7. Kim, H.H.; Kim, Y.H.: Generic speech summarization of transcribed lecture videos : using tags and their semantic relations (2016) 0.01 
    0.009729404 = product of:
  0.038917616 = sum of:
    0.038917616 = product of:
      0.058376424 = sum of:
        0.029320091 = weight(_text_:29 in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029320091 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
        0.029056335 = weight(_text_:22 in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029056335 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 12:29:41
  8. Pinto, M.: Engineering the production of meta-information : the abstracting concern (2003) 0.01 
    0.009675137 = product of:
  0.038700547 = sum of:
    0.038700547 = product of:
      0.11610164 = sum of:
        0.11610164 = weight(_text_:29 in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11610164 = score(doc=4667,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.7694941 = fieldWeight in 4667, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4667)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    27.11.2005 18:29:55
    Source
    Journal of information science. 29(2003) no.5, S.405-418
  9. Kannan, R.; Ghinea, G.; Swaminathan, S.: What do you wish to see? : A summarization system for movies based on user preferences (2015) 0.01 
    0.0068931053 = product of:
  0.027572421 = sum of:
    0.027572421 = product of:
      0.04135863 = sum of:
        0.01790256 = weight(_text_:systems in 2683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01790256 = score(doc=2683,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 2683, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2683)
        0.02345607 = weight(_text_:29 in 2683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02345607 = score(doc=2683,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 2683, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2683)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Video summarization aims at producing a compact version of a full-length video while preserving the significant content of the original video. Movie summarization condenses a full-length movie into a summary that still retains the most significant and interesting content of the original movie. In the past, several movie summarization systems have been proposed to generate a movie summary based on low-level video features such as color, motion, texture, etc. However, a generic summary, which is common to everyone and is produced based only on low-level video features will not satisfy every user. As users' preferences for the summary differ vastly for the same movie, there is a need for a personalized movie summarization system nowadays. To address this demand, this paper proposes a novel system to generate semantically meaningful video summaries for the same movie, which are tailored to the preferences and interests of a user. For a given movie, shots and scenes are automatically detected and their high-level features are semi-automatically annotated. Preferences over high-level movie features are explicitly collected from the user using a query interface. The user preferences are generated by means of a stored-query. Movie summaries are generated at shot level and scene level, where shots or scenes are selected for summary skim based on the similarity measured between shots and scenes, and the user's preferences. The proposed movie summarization system is evaluated subjectively using a sample of 20 subjects with eight movies in the English language. The quality of the generated summaries is assessed by informativeness, enjoyability, relevance, and acceptance metrics and Quality of Perception measures. Further, the usability of the proposed summarization system is subjectively evaluated by conducting a questionnaire survey. The experimental results on the performance of the proposed movie summarization approach show the potential of the proposed system.
    Date
    25. 1.2016 18:45:29
  10. Salton, G.; Allan, J.; Buckley, C.; Singhal, A.: Automatic analysis, theme generation, and summarization of machine readable texts (1994) 0.00 
    0.004886682 = product of:
  0.019546729 = sum of:
    0.019546729 = product of:
      0.058640182 = sum of:
        0.058640182 = weight(_text_:29 in 1949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058640182 = score(doc=1949,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.38865322 = fieldWeight in 1949, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1949)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    16. 8.1998 12:30:29
  11. Craven, T.C.: ¬A phrase flipper for the assistance of writers of abstracts and other text (1995) 0.00 
    0.0039093453 = product of:
  0.015637381 = sum of:
    0.015637381 = product of:
      0.04691214 = sum of:
        0.04691214 = weight(_text_:29 in 4897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04691214 = score(doc=4897,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 4897, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4897)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    17. 8.1996 10:29:59
  12. Sparck Jones, K.: Automatic summarising : the state of the art (2007) 0.00 
    0.0038760183 = product of:
  0.015504073 = sum of:
    0.015504073 = product of:
      0.04651222 = sum of:
        0.04651222 = weight(_text_:systems in 932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04651222 = score(doc=932,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 932, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=932)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper reviews research on automatic summarising in the last decade. This work has grown, stimulated by technology and by evaluation programmes. The paper uses several frameworks to organise the review, for summarising itself, for the factors affecting summarising, for systems, and for evaluation. The review examines the evaluation strategies applied to summarising, the issues they raise, and the major programmes. It considers the input, purpose and output factors investigated in recent summarising research, and discusses the classes of strategy, extractive and non-extractive, that have been explored, illustrating the range of systems built. The conclusions drawn are that automatic summarisation has made valuable progress, with useful applications, better evaluation, and more task understanding. But summarising systems are still poorly motivated in relation to the factors affecting them, and evaluation needs taking much further to engage with the purposes summaries are intended to serve and the contexts in which they are used.
  13. Goh, A.; Hui, S.C.: TES: a text extraction system (1996) 0.00 
    0.0038741778 = product of:
  0.015496711 = sum of:
    0.015496711 = product of:
      0.046490133 = sum of:
        0.046490133 = weight(_text_:22 in 6599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046490133 = score(doc=6599,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6599, 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=6599)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    26. 2.1997 10:22:43
  14. McKeown, K.; Robin, J.; Kukich, K.: Generating concise natural language summaries (1995) 0.00 
    0.0037297006 = product of:
  0.014918802 = sum of:
    0.014918802 = product of:
      0.044756405 = sum of:
        0.044756405 = weight(_text_:systems in 2932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044756405 = score(doc=2932,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.339541 = fieldWeight in 2932, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2932)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Description of the problems for summary generation, the applications developed (for basket ball games - STREAK and for telephone network planning activity - PLANDOC), the linguistic constructions that the systems use to convey information concisely and the textual constraints that determine what information gets included
  15. Kuhlen, R.: In Richtung Summarizing für Diskurse in K3 (2006) 0.00 
    0.003692215 = product of:
  0.01476886 = sum of:
    0.01476886 = product of:
      0.04430658 = sum of:
        0.04430658 = weight(_text_:systems in 6067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04430658 = score(doc=6067,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 6067, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6067)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Der Bedarf nach Summarizing-Leistungen, in Situationen der Fachinformation, aber auch in kommunikativen Umgebungen (Diskursen) wird aufgezeigt. Summarizing wird dazu in den Kontext des bisherigen (auch automatischen) Abstracting/Extracting gestellt. Der aktuelle Forschungsstand, vor allem mit Blick auf Multi-Document-Summarizing, wird dargestellt. Summarizing ist eine wichtige Funktion in komplex und umfänglich werdenden Diskussionen in elektronischen Foren. Dies wird am Beispiel des e-Learning-Systems K3 aufgezeigt. Rudimentäre Summarizing-Funktionen von K3 und des zugeordneten K3VIS-Systems werden dargestellt. Der Rahmen für ein elaborierteres, Template-orientiertes Summarizing unter Verwendung der vielfältigen Auszeichnungsfunktionen von K3 (Rollen, Diskurstypen, Inhaltstypen etc.) wird aufgespannt.
  16. Uyttendaele, C.; Moens, M.-F.; Dumortier, J.: SALOMON: automatic abstracting of legal cases for effective access to court decisions (1998) 0.00 
    0.003420677 = product of:
  0.013682708 = sum of:
    0.013682708 = product of:
      0.041048124 = sum of:
        0.041048124 = weight(_text_:29 in 495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041048124 = score(doc=495,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 495, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=495)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    17. 7.1996 14:16:29
  17. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.; Jauris-Heipke, S.; Pinsky, S.M.; Ulbricht, U.: Wissen gewinnen durch Wissen : Ontologiebasierte Informationsextraktion (2006) 0.00 
    0.0032300155 = product of:
  0.012920062 = sum of:
    0.012920062 = product of:
      0.038760185 = sum of:
        0.038760185 = weight(_text_:systems in 6016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038760185 = score(doc=6016,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 6016, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6016)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Die ontologiebasierte Informationsextraktion, über die hier berichtet wird, ist Teil eines Systems zum automatischen Zusammenfassen, das sich am Vorgehen kompetenter Menschen orientiert. Dahinter steht die Annahme, dass Menschen die Ergebnisse eines Systems leichter übernehmen können, wenn sie mit Verfahren erarbeitet worden sind, die sie selbst auch benutzen. Das erste Anwendungsgebiet ist Knochenmarktransplantation (KMT). Im Kern des Systems Summit-BMT (Summarize It in Bone Marrow Transplantation) steht eine Ontologie des Fachgebietes. Sie ist als MySQL-Datenbank realisiert und versorgt menschliche Benutzer und Systemkomponenten mit Wissen. Summit-BMT unterstützt die Frageformulierung mit einem empirisch fundierten Szenario-Interface. Die Retrievalergebnisse werden durch ein Textpassagenretrieval vorselektiert und dann kognitiv fundierten Agenten unterbreitet, die unter Einsatz ihrer Wissensbasis / Ontologie genauer prüfen, ob die Propositionen aus der Benutzerfrage getroffen werden. Die relevanten Textclips aus dem Duelldokument werden in das Szenarioformular eingetragen und mit einem Link zu ihrem Vorkommen im Original präsentiert. In diesem Artikel stehen die Ontologie und ihr Gebrauch zur wissensbasierten Informationsextraktion im Mittelpunkt. Die Ontologiedatenbank hält unterschiedliche Wissenstypen so bereit, dass sie leicht kombiniert werden können: Konzepte, Propositionen und ihre syntaktisch-semantischen Schemata, Unifikatoren, Paraphrasen und Definitionen von Frage-Szenarios. Auf sie stützen sich die Systemagenten, welche von Menschen adaptierte Zusammenfassungsstrategien ausführen. Mängel in anderen Verarbeitungsschritten führen zu Verlusten, aber die eigentliche Qualität der Ergebnisse steht und fällt mit der Qualität der Ontologie. Erste Tests der Extraktionsleistung fallen verblüffend positiv aus.
  18. Díaz, A.; Gervás, P.: User-model based personalized summarization (2007) 0.00 
    0.0031647556 = product of:
  0.012659023 = sum of:
    0.012659023 = product of:
      0.037977066 = sum of:
        0.037977066 = weight(_text_:systems in 952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037977066 = score(doc=952,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 952, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=952)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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. Brandow, R.; Mitze, K.; Rau, L.F.: Automatic condensation of electronic publications by sentence selection (1995) 0.00 
    0.00298376 = product of:
  0.01193504 = sum of:
    0.01193504 = product of:
      0.03580512 = sum of:
        0.03580512 = weight(_text_:systems in 2929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03580512 = score(doc=2929,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 2929, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2929)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Description of a system that performs domain-independent automatic condensation of news from a large commercial news service encompassing 41 different publications. This system was evaluated against a system that condensed the same articles using only the first portions of the texts (the löead), up to the target length of the summaries. 3 lengths of articles were evaluated for 250 documents by both systems, totalling 1.500 suitability judgements in all. The lead-based summaries outperformed the 'intelligent' summaries significantly, achieving acceptability ratings of over 90%, compared to 74,7%
  20. Over, P.; Dang, H.; Harman, D.: DUC in context (2007) 0.00 
    0.00298376 = product of:
  0.01193504 = sum of:
    0.01193504 = product of:
      0.03580512 = sum of:
        0.03580512 = weight(_text_:systems in 934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03580512 = score(doc=934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 934, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=934)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Recent years have seen increased interest in text summarization with emphasis on evaluation of prototype systems. Many factors can affect the design of such evaluations, requiring choices among competing alternatives. This paper examines several major themes running through three evaluations: SUMMAC, NTCIR, and DUC, with a concentration on DUC. The themes are extrinsic and intrinsic evaluation, evaluation procedures and methods, generic versus focused summaries, single- and multi-document summaries, length and compression issues, extracts versus abstracts, and issues with genre.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 27
  • d 3

Types

  • a 28
  • m 2

Themes

Subjects