-
Robin, J.; McKeown, K.: Empirically designing and evaluating a new revision-based model for summary generation (1996)
0.02
0.023495179 = product of:
0.12530762 = sum of:
0.035972122 = product of:
0.071944244 = sum of:
0.071944244 = weight(_text_:rules in 6751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.071944244 = score(doc=6751,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.4451513 = fieldWeight in 6751, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6751)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071944244 = weight(_text_:rules in 6751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.071944244 = score(doc=6751,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.4451513 = fieldWeight in 6751, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6751)
0.017391251 = product of:
0.034782503 = sum of:
0.034782503 = weight(_text_:22 in 6751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034782503 = score(doc=6751,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11237528 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = 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)
0.1875 = coord(3/16)
- 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
-
Jones, S.; Paynter, G.W.: Automatic extractionof document keyphrases for use in digital libraries : evaluations and applications (2002)
0.02
0.018951688 = product of:
0.101075664 = sum of:
0.05836024 = weight(_text_:author in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05836024 = score(doc=601,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.3769343 = fieldWeight in 601, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=601)
0.022109302 = weight(_text_:26 in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022109302 = score(doc=601,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 601, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=601)
0.02060612 = weight(_text_:american in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02060612 = score(doc=601,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.18834224 = fieldWeight in 601, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=601)
0.1875 = coord(3/16)
- 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.
- Date
- 26. 5.2002 15:32:08
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.8, S.653-677
-
Craven, T.C.: ¬An experiment in the use of tools for computer-assisted abstracting (1996)
0.02
0.016443312 = product of:
0.08769767 = sum of:
0.049520306 = weight(_text_:author in 7426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049520306 = score(doc=7426,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 7426, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7426)
0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 7426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024727343 = score(doc=7426,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 7426, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7426)
0.013450016 = product of:
0.026900033 = sum of:
0.026900033 = weight(_text_:ed in 7426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026900033 = score(doc=7426,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.23573098 = fieldWeight in 7426, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7426)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.1875 = coord(3/16)
- Abstract
- Experimental subjects wrote abstracts of an article using a simplified version of the TEXNET abstracting assistance software. In addition to the fulltext, the 35 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. 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 deveral hypothesised 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. Results also suggested possible modifications to the software
- Source
- Global complexity: information, chaos and control. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, ASIS'96, Baltimore, Maryland, 21-24 Oct 1996. Ed.: S. Hardin
-
Craven, T.C.: ¬A phrase flipper for the assistance of writers of abstracts and other text (1995)
0.01
0.013489546 = product of:
0.10791637 = sum of:
0.035972122 = product of:
0.071944244 = sum of:
0.071944244 = weight(_text_:rules in 4897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.071944244 = score(doc=4897,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.4451513 = fieldWeight in 4897, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4897)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071944244 = weight(_text_:rules in 4897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.071944244 = score(doc=4897,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.4451513 = fieldWeight in 4897, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4897)
0.125 = coord(2/16)
- Abstract
- Describes computerized tools for computer assisted abstracting. FlipPhr is a Microsoft Windows application program that rearranges (flips) phrases or other expressions in accordance with rules in a grammar. The flipping may be invoked with a single keystroke from within various Windows application programs that allow cutting and pasting of text. The user may modify the grammar to provide for different kinds of flipping
-
Xianghao, G.; Yixin, Z.; Li, Y.: ¬A new method of news test understanding and abstracting based on speech acts theory (1998)
0.01
0.013489546 = product of:
0.10791637 = sum of:
0.035972122 = product of:
0.071944244 = sum of:
0.071944244 = weight(_text_:rules in 3532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.071944244 = score(doc=3532,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.4451513 = fieldWeight in 3532, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3532)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071944244 = weight(_text_:rules in 3532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.071944244 = score(doc=3532,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.4451513 = fieldWeight in 3532, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3532)
0.125 = coord(2/16)
- 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
-
Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: Summarizing information (1998)
0.01
0.009506433 = product of:
0.076051466 = sum of:
0.049520306 = weight(_text_:author in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049520306 = score(doc=688,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
0.026531162 = weight(_text_:26 in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026531162 = score(doc=688,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
0.125 = coord(2/16)
- Abstract
- Summarizing is the process of reducing the large information size of something like a novel or a scientific paper to a short summary or abstract comprising only the most essential points. Summarizing is frequent in everyday communication, but it is also a professional skill for journalists and others. Automated summarizing functions are urgently needed by Internet users who wish to avoid being overwhelmed by information. This book presents the state of the art and surveys related research; it deals with everyday and professional summarizing as well as computerized approaches. The author focuses in detail on the cognitive pro-cess involved in summarizing and supports this with a multimedia simulation systems on the accompanying CD-ROM
- Date
- 26. 5.1996 11:11:10
-
Craven, T.C.: Abstracts produced using computer assistance (2000)
0.01
0.009280956 = product of:
0.07424765 = sum of:
0.049520306 = weight(_text_:author in 4809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049520306 = score(doc=4809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 4809, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4809)
0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 4809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024727343 = score(doc=4809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 4809, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4809)
0.125 = coord(2/16)
- 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
-
Finegan-Dollak, C.; Radev, D.R.: Sentence simplification, compression, and disaggregation for summarization of sophisticated documents (2016)
0.01
0.008430966 = product of:
0.06744773 = sum of:
0.022482576 = product of:
0.04496515 = sum of:
0.04496515 = weight(_text_:rules in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04496515 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.27821955 = fieldWeight in 3122, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3122)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04496515 = weight(_text_:rules in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04496515 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.27821955 = fieldWeight in 3122, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3122)
0.125 = coord(2/16)
- Abstract
- Sophisticated documents like legal cases and biomedical articles can contain unusually long sentences. Extractive summarizers can select such sentences-potentially adding hundreds of unnecessary words to the summary-or exclude them and lose important content. Sentence simplification or compression seems on the surface to be a promising solution. However, compression removes words before the selection algorithm can use them, and simplification generates sentences that may be ambiguous in an extractive summary. We therefore compare the performance of an extractive summarizer selecting from the sentences of the original document with that of the summarizer selecting from sentences shortened in three ways: simplification, compression, and disaggregation, which splits one sentence into several according to rules designed to keep all meaning. We find that on legal cases and biomedical articles, these shortening methods generate ungrammatical output. Human evaluators performed an extrinsic evaluation consisting of comprehension questions about the summaries. Evaluators given compressed, simplified, or disaggregated versions of the summaries answered fewer questions correctly than did those given summaries with unaltered sentences. Error analysis suggests 2 causes: Altered sentences sometimes interact with the sentence selection algorithm, and alterations to sentences sometimes obscure information in the summary. We discuss future work to alleviate these problems.
-
Marsh, E.: ¬A production rule system for message summarisation (1984)
0.01
0.007953616 = product of:
0.06362893 = sum of:
0.04121224 = weight(_text_:american in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04121224 = score(doc=1956,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.3766845 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1956)
0.022416692 = product of:
0.044833384 = sum of:
0.044833384 = weight(_text_:ed in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044833384 = score(doc=1956,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.39288494 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1956)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.125 = coord(2/16)
- Footnote
- Wiederabgedruckt in: Readings in information retrieval. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones u. P. Willett. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann 1997. S.534-537.
- Source
- Proceedings of the American Association for artificial intelligence
-
Paice, C.D.: Automatic abstracting (1994)
0.01
0.0069800117 = product of:
0.11168019 = sum of:
0.11168019 = weight(_text_:2nd in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11168019 = score(doc=917,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18010403 = queryWeight, product of:
5.6123877 = idf(docFreq=438, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.6200871 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.6123877 = idf(docFreq=438, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
0.0625 = coord(1/16)
- Abstract
- The final report of the 2nd British Library abstracting project (the BLAB project), 1990-1992, which was carried out partly at the Computing Department of Lancaster University, and partly at the Centre for Computational Linguistics, UMIST. This project built on the results of the first project, of 1985-1987, to build a system designed create abstracts automatically from given texts
-
Goh, A.; Hui, S.C.: TES: a text extraction system (1996)
0.01
0.006595767 = product of:
0.052766137 = sum of:
0.035374884 = weight(_text_:26 in 6599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035374884 = score(doc=6599,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.31214553 = fieldWeight in 6599, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6599)
0.017391251 = product of:
0.034782503 = sum of:
0.034782503 = weight(_text_:22 in 6599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034782503 = score(doc=6599,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11237528 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.125 = coord(2/16)
- Date
- 26. 2.1997 10:22:43
-
Kim, H.H.; Kim, Y.H.: Generic speech summarization of transcribed lecture videos : using tags and their semantic relations (2016)
0.01
0.0065170564 = product of:
0.05213645 = sum of:
0.04126692 = weight(_text_:author in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04126692 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.26653278 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
0.010869532 = product of:
0.021739064 = sum of:
0.021739064 = weight(_text_:22 in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021739064 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11237528 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = 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)
0.125 = coord(2/16)
- 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
-
Chen, H.-H.; Kuo, J.-J.; Huang, S.-J.; Lin, C.-J.; Wung, H.-C.: ¬A summarization system for Chinese news from multiple sources (2003)
0.01
0.006407313 = product of:
0.051258504 = sum of:
0.026531162 = weight(_text_:26 in 2115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026531162 = score(doc=2115,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 2115, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2115)
0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 2115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024727343 = score(doc=2115,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 2115, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2115)
0.125 = coord(2/16)
- Date
- 24. 1.2004 18:26:52
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.13, S.1224-1236
-
Kuhlen, R.: Informationsaufbereitung III : Referieren (Abstracts - Abstracting - Grundlagen) (2004)
0.01
0.006187304 = product of:
0.04949843 = sum of:
0.033013538 = weight(_text_:author in 2917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033013538 = score(doc=2917,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.21322623 = fieldWeight in 2917, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2917)
0.016484896 = weight(_text_:american in 2917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016484896 = score(doc=2917,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.15067379 = fieldWeight in 2917, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2917)
0.125 = coord(2/16)
- Abstract
- Was ein Abstract (im Folgenden synonym mit Referat oder Kurzreferat gebraucht) ist, legt das American National Standards Institute in einer Weise fest, die sicherlich von den meisten Fachleuten akzeptiert werden kann: "An abstract is defined as an abbreviated, accurate representation of the contents of a document"; fast genauso die deutsche Norm DIN 1426: "Das Kurzreferat gibt kurz und klar den Inhalt des Dokuments wieder." Abstracts gehören zum wissenschaftlichen Alltag. Weitgehend allen Publikationen, zumindest in den naturwissenschaftlichen, technischen, informationsbezogenen oder medizinischen Bereichen, gehen Abstracts voran, "prefe-rably prepared by its author(s) for publication with it". Es gibt wohl keinen Wissenschaftler, der nicht irgendwann einmal ein Abstract geschrieben hätte. Gehört das Erstellen von Abstracts dann überhaupt zur dokumentarischen bzw informationswissenschaftlichen Methodenlehre, wenn es jeder kann? Was macht den informationellen Mehrwert aus, der durch Expertenreferate gegenüber Laienreferaten erzeugt wird? Dies ist nicht so leicht zu beantworten, zumal geeignete Bewertungsverfahren fehlen, die Qualität von Abstracts vergleichend "objektiv" zu messen. Abstracts werden in erheblichem Umfang von Informationsspezialisten erstellt, oft unter der Annahme, dass Autoren selber dafür weniger geeignet sind. Vergegenwärtigen wir uns, was wir über Abstracts und Abstracting wissen. Ein besonders gelungenes Abstract ist zuweilen klarer als der Ursprungstext selber, darf aber nicht mehr Information als dieser enthalten: "Good abstracts are highly structured, concise, and coherent, and are the result of a thorough analysis of the content of the abstracted materials. Abstracts may be more readable than the basis documents, but because of size constraints they rarely equal and never surpass the information content of the basic document". Dies ist verständlich, denn ein "Abstract" ist zunächst nichts anderes als ein Ergebnis des Vorgangs einer Abstraktion. Ohne uns zu sehr in die philosophischen Hintergründe der Abstraktion zu verlieren, besteht diese doch "in der Vernachlässigung von bestimmten Vorstellungsbzw. Begriffsinhalten, von welchen zugunsten anderer Teilinhalte abgesehen, abstrahiert' wird. Sie ist stets verbunden mit einer Fixierung von (interessierenden) Merkmalen durch die aktive Aufmerksamkeit, die unter einem bestimmten pragmatischen Gesichtspunkt als wesentlich' für einen vorgestellten bzw für einen unter einen Begriff fallenden Gegenstand (oder eine Mehrheit von Gegenständen) betrachtet werden". Abstracts reduzieren weniger Begriffsinhalte, sondern Texte bezüglich ihres proportionalen Gehaltes. Borko/ Bernier haben dies sogar quantifiziert; sie schätzen den Reduktionsfaktor auf 1:10 bis 1:12
-
Wei, F.; Li, W.; Lu, Q.; He, Y.: Applying two-level reinforcement ranking in query-oriented multidocument summarization (2009)
0.01
0.005339428 = product of:
0.042715423 = sum of:
0.022109302 = weight(_text_:26 in 3120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022109302 = score(doc=3120,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 3120, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3120)
0.02060612 = weight(_text_:american in 3120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02060612 = score(doc=3120,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.18834224 = fieldWeight in 3120, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3120)
0.125 = coord(2/16)
- Date
- 26. 9.2009 11:16:24
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.10, S.2119-2131
-
Jones, P.A.; Bradbeer, P.V.G.: Discovery of optimal weights in a concept selection system (1996)
0.00
0.0044155754 = product of:
0.07064921 = sum of:
0.07064921 = sum of:
0.035866708 = weight(_text_:ed in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035866708 = score(doc=6974,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.31430796 = fieldWeight in 6974, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6974)
0.034782503 = weight(_text_:22 in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034782503 = score(doc=6974,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11237528 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = 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)
0.0625 = coord(1/16)
- 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
-
Wu, Y.-f.B.; Li, Q.; Bot, R.S.; Chen, X.: Finding nuggets in documents : a machine learning approach (2006)
0.00
0.0039344565 = product of:
0.031475652 = sum of:
0.02060612 = weight(_text_:american in 5290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02060612 = score(doc=5290,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.18834224 = fieldWeight in 5290, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5290)
0.010869532 = product of:
0.021739064 = sum of:
0.021739064 = weight(_text_:22 in 5290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021739064 = score(doc=5290,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11237528 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.125 = coord(2/16)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 17:25:48
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.6, S.740-752
-
Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: SimSum : an empirically founded simulation of summarizing (2000)
0.00
0.003869128 = product of:
0.061906047 = sum of:
0.061906047 = weight(_text_:26 in 3343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061906047 = score(doc=3343,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.5462547 = fieldWeight in 3343, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3343)
0.0625 = coord(1/16)
- Date
- 15. 8.2002 18:26:20
-
Atanassova, I.; Bertin, M.; Larivière, V.: On the composition of scientific abstracts (2016)
0.00
0.0025791824 = product of:
0.04126692 = sum of:
0.04126692 = weight(_text_:author in 3028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04126692 = score(doc=3028,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.26653278 = fieldWeight in 3028, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3028)
0.0625 = coord(1/16)
- 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.
-
Wang, W.; Hwang, D.: Abstraction Assistant : an automatic text abstraction system (2010)
0.00
0.002185609 = product of:
0.034969743 = sum of:
0.034969743 = weight(_text_:american in 3981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034969743 = score(doc=3981,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
0.032090448 = queryNorm
0.31962737 = fieldWeight in 3981, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3981)
0.0625 = coord(1/16)
- Abstract
- In the interest of standardization and quality assurance, it is desirable for authors and staff of access services to follow the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) guidelines in preparing abstracts. Using the statistical approach an extraction system (the Abstraction Assistant) was developed to generate informative abstracts to meet the ANSI guidelines for structural content elements. The system performance is evaluated by comparing the system-generated abstracts with the author's original abstracts and the manually enhanced system abstracts on three criteria: balance (satisfaction of the ANSI standards), fluency (text coherence), and understandability (clarity). The results suggest that it is possible to use the system output directly without manual modification, but there are issues that need to be addressed in further studies to make the system a better tool.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.9, S.1790-1799
