Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.033768874 = product of:
  0.10130662 = sum of:
    0.10130662 = weight(_text_:title in 3788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10130662 = score(doc=3788,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.3692435 = fieldWeight in 3788, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3788)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We address the challenge of extracting query biased audio summaries from podcasts to support users in making relevance decisions in spoken document search via an audio-only communication channel. We performed a crowdsourced experiment that demonstrates that transcripts of spoken documents created using Automated Speech Recognition (ASR), even with significant errors, are effective sources of document summaries or "snippets" for supporting users in making relevance judgments against a query. In particular, the results show that summaries generated from ASR transcripts are comparable, in utility and user-judged preference, to spoken summaries generated from error-free manual transcripts of the same collection. We also observed that content-based audio summaries are at least as preferred as synthesized summaries obtained from manually curated metadata, such as title and description. We describe a methodology for constructing a new test collection, which we have made publicly available.

0.028140724 = product of:
  0.08442217 = sum of:
    0.08442217 = weight(_text_:title in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08442217 = score(doc=1325,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.3077029 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Previous research assessing the effectiveness of structured abstracts has been limited in two respects. First, when comparing structured abstracts with traditional ones, investigators usually have rewritten the original abstracts, and thus confounded changes in the layout with changes in both the wording and the content of the text. Second, investigators have not always included the title of the article together with the abstract when asking participants to judge the quality of the abstracts, yet titles alert readers to the meaning of the materials that follow. The aim of this research was to redress these limitations. Three studies were carried out. Four versions of each of four abstracts were prepared. These versions consisted of structured/traditional abstracts matched in content, with and without titles. In Study 1, 64 undergraduates each rated one of these abstracts on six separate rating scales. In Study 2, 225 academics and research workers rated the abstracts electronically, and in Study 3, 252 information scientists did likewise. In Studies 1 and 3, the respondents rated the structured abstracts significantly more favorably than they did the traditional ones, but the presence or absence of titles had no effect on their judgments. In Study 2, no main effects were observed for structure or for titles. The layout of the text, together with the subheadings, contributed to the higher ratings of effectiveness for structured abstracts, but the presence or absence of titles had no clear effects in these experimental studies. It is likely that this spatial organization, together with the greater amount of information normally provided in structured abstracts, explains why structured abstracts are generally judged to be superior to traditional ones.

0.014830943 = product of:
  0.04449283 = sum of:
    0.04449283 = product of:
      0.08898566 = sum of:
        0.08898566 = weight(_text_:catalogue in 255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08898566 = score(doc=255,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23806341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.37378973 = fieldWeight in 255, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=255)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Public library catalogues in early twentieth-century Britain frequently included annotations, either to clarify obscure titles or to provide further information about the subject-matter of the books they described. Two manuals giving instruction on how to do this were published at that time. Following World War I, with the decline of the printed catalogue, this kind of annotation became rarer, and was almost confined to bulletins of new books. The early issues of the British National Bibliography included some annotations in exceptional cases. Parallels are drawn with the provision of table-of-contents information in present-day OPAC's.

0.01112275 = product of:
  0.03336825 = sum of:
    0.03336825 = product of:
      0.0667365 = sum of:
        0.0667365 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0667365 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

27. 1.1996 18:22:06

0.0088982 = product of:
  0.026694598 = sum of:
    0.026694598 = product of:
      0.053389195 = sum of:
        0.053389195 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053389195 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Reference librarian. 1988, no.22, S.297-308

0.00667365 = product of:
  0.020020949 = sum of:
    0.020020949 = product of:
      0.040041897 = sum of:
        0.040041897 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040041897 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37

0.00667365 = product of:
  0.020020949 = sum of:
    0.020020949 = product of:
      0.040041897 = sum of:
        0.040041897 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040041897 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.00667365 = product of:
  0.020020949 = sum of:
    0.020020949 = product of:
      0.040041897 = sum of:
        0.040041897 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040041897 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006

0.005561375 = product of:
  0.016684124 = sum of:
    0.016684124 = product of:
      0.03336825 = sum of:
        0.03336825 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03336825 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356