Search (98 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Automatisches Abstracting"
  1. Robin, J.; McKeown, K.: Empirically designing and evaluating a new revision-based model for summary generation (1996) 0.02 
    0.017902408 = product of:
  0.044756018 = sum of:
    0.02211663 = weight(_text_:of in 6751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02211663 = score(doc=6751,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 6751, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6751)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 6751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=6751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  2. Goh, A.; Hui, S.C.: TES: a text extraction system (1996) 0.02 
    0.017131606 = product of:
  0.042829014 = sum of:
    0.02018963 = weight(_text_:of in 6599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018963 = score(doc=6599,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 6599, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6599)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 6599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=6599,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    With the onset of the information explosion arising from digital libraries and access to a wealth of information through the Internet, the need to efficiently determine the relevance of a document becomes even more urgent. Describes a text extraction system (TES), which retrieves a set of sentences from a document to form an indicative abstract. Such an automated process enables information to be filtered more quickly. Discusses the combination of various text extraction techniques. Compares results with manually produced abstracts
    Date
    26. 2.1997 10:22:43
  3. Jones, P.A.; Bradbeer, P.V.G.: Discovery of optimal weights in a concept selection system (1996) 0.02 
    0.017131606 = product of:
  0.042829014 = sum of:
    0.02018963 = weight(_text_:of in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018963 = score(doc=6974,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 6974, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6974)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=6974,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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. Ercan, G.; Cicekli, I.: Using lexical chains for keyword extraction (2007) 0.02 
    0.01552351 = product of:
  0.038808774 = sum of:
    0.01646295 = product of:
      0.08231475 = sum of:
        0.08231475 = weight(_text_:problem in 951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08231475 = score(doc=951,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.46424055 = fieldWeight in 951, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=951)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.022345824 = weight(_text_:of in 951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022345824 = score(doc=951,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 951, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=951)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Keywords can be considered as condensed versions of documents and short forms of their summaries. In this paper, the problem of automatic extraction of keywords from documents is treated as a supervised learning task. A lexical chain holds a set of semantically related words of a text and it can be said that a lexical chain represents the semantic content of a portion of the text. Although lexical chains have been extensively used in text summarization, their usage for keyword extraction problem has not been fully investigated. In this paper, a keyword extraction technique that uses lexical chains is described, and encouraging results are obtained.
  5. Vanderwende, L.; Suzuki, H.; Brockett, J.M.; Nenkova, A.: Beyond SumBasic : task-focused summarization with sentence simplification and lexical expansion (2007) 0.01 
    0.014917984 = product of:
  0.037294958 = sum of:
    0.02031542 = weight(_text_:of in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02031542 = score(doc=948,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 948, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=948)
    0.016979538 = product of:
      0.033959076 = sum of:
        0.033959076 = weight(_text_:22 in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033959076 = score(doc=948,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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. Oh, H.; Nam, S.; Zhu, Y.: Structured abstract summarization of scientific articles : summarization using full-text section information (2023) 0.01 
    0.014402213 = product of:
  0.03600553 = sum of:
    0.021855915 = weight(_text_:of in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021855915 = score(doc=889,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
    0.0141496165 = product of:
      0.028299233 = sum of:
        0.028299233 = weight(_text_:22 in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028299233 = score(doc=889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 889, 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=889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The automatic summarization of scientific articles differs from other text genres because of the structured format and longer text length. Previous approaches have focused on tackling the lengthy nature of scientific articles, aiming to improve the computational efficiency of summarizing long text using a flat, unstructured abstract. However, the structured format of scientific articles and characteristics of each section have not been fully explored, despite their importance. The lack of a sufficient investigation and discussion of various characteristics for each section and their influence on summarization results has hindered the practical use of automatic summarization for scientific articles. To provide a balanced abstract proportionally emphasizing each section of a scientific article, the community introduced the structured abstract, an abstract with distinct, labeled sections. Using this information, in this study, we aim to understand tasks ranging from data preparation to model evaluation from diverse viewpoints. Specifically, we provide a preprocessed large-scale dataset and propose a summarization method applying the introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRaD) format reflecting the characteristics of each section. We also discuss the objective benchmarks and perspectives of state-of-the-art algorithms and present the challenges and research directions in this area.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:57:12
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.234-248
  7. Kim, H.H.; Kim, Y.H.: Generic speech summarization of transcribed lecture videos : using tags and their semantic relations (2016) 0.01 
    0.012431653 = product of:
  0.031079132 = sum of:
    0.016929517 = weight(_text_:of in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016929517 = score(doc=2640,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
    0.0141496165 = product of:
      0.028299233 = sum of:
        0.028299233 = weight(_text_:22 in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028299233 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.366-379
  8. Ye, S.; Chua, T.-S.; Kan, M.-Y.; Qiu, L.: Document concept lattice for text understanding and summarization (2007) 0.01 
    0.01211739 = product of:
  0.030293474 = sum of:
    0.009978054 = product of:
      0.04989027 = sum of:
        0.04989027 = weight(_text_:problem in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04989027 = score(doc=941,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 941, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=941)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.02031542 = weight(_text_:of in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02031542 = score(doc=941,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 941, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=941)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    We argue that the quality of a summary can be evaluated based on how many concepts in the original document(s) that can be preserved after summarization. Here, a concept refers to an abstract or concrete entity or its action often expressed by diverse terms in text. Summary generation can thus be considered as an optimization problem of selecting a set of sentences with minimal answer loss. In this paper, we propose a document concept lattice that indexes the hierarchy of local topics tied to a set of frequent concepts and the corresponding sentences containing these topics. The local topics will specify the promising sub-spaces related to the selected concepts and sentences. Based on this lattice, the summary is an optimized selection of a set of distinct and salient local topics that lead to maximal coverage of concepts with the given number of sentences. Our summarizer based on the concept lattice has demonstrated competitive performance in Document Understanding Conference 2005 and 2006 evaluations as well as follow-on tests.
  9. Wu, Y.-f.B.; Li, Q.; Bot, R.S.; Chen, X.: Finding nuggets in documents : a machine learning approach (2006) 0.01 
    0.01163202 = product of:
  0.029080048 = sum of:
    0.014930432 = weight(_text_:of in 5290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014930432 = score(doc=5290,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 5290, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5290)
    0.0141496165 = product of:
      0.028299233 = sum of:
        0.028299233 = weight(_text_:22 in 5290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028299233 = score(doc=5290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.6, S.740-752
  10. Jiang, Y.; Meng, R.; Huang, Y.; Lu, W.; Liu, J.: Generating keyphrases for readers : a controllable keyphrase generation framework (2023) 0.01 
    0.01163202 = product of:
  0.029080048 = sum of:
    0.014930432 = weight(_text_:of in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014930432 = score(doc=1012,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
    0.0141496165 = product of:
      0.028299233 = sum of:
        0.028299233 = weight(_text_:22 in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028299233 = score(doc=1012,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1012, 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=1012)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    With the wide application of keyphrases in many Information Retrieval (IR) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, automatic keyphrase prediction has been emerging. However, these statistically important phrases are contributing increasingly less to the related tasks because the end-to-end learning mechanism enables models to learn the important semantic information of the text directly. Similarly, keyphrases are of little help for readers to quickly grasp the paper's main idea because the relationship between the keyphrase and the paper is not explicit to readers. Therefore, we propose to generate keyphrases with specific functions for readers to bridge the semantic gap between them and the information producers, and verify the effectiveness of the keyphrase function for assisting users' comprehension with a user experiment. A controllable keyphrase generation framework (the CKPG) that uses the keyphrase function as a control code to generate categorized keyphrases is proposed and implemented based on Transformer, BART, and T5, respectively. For the Computer Science domain, the Macro-avgs of , , and on the Paper with Code dataset are up to 0.680, 0.535, and 0.558, respectively. Our experimental results indicate the effectiveness of the CKPG models.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 14:55:20
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.759-774
  11. Zajic, D.; Dorr, B.J.; Lin, J.; Schwartz, R.: Multi-candidate reduction : sentence compression as a tool for document summarization tasks (2007) 0.01 
    0.010976778 = product of:
  0.027441945 = sum of:
    0.011641062 = product of:
      0.05820531 = sum of:
        0.05820531 = weight(_text_:problem in 944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05820531 = score(doc=944,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.3282676 = fieldWeight in 944, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=944)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.015800884 = weight(_text_:of in 944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015800884 = score(doc=944,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 944, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=944)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article examines the application of two single-document sentence compression techniques to the problem of multi-document summarization-a "parse-and-trim" approach and a statistical noisy-channel approach. We introduce the multi-candidate reduction (MCR) framework for multi-document summarization, in which many compressed candidates are generated for each source sentence. These candidates are then selected for inclusion in the final summary based on a combination of static and dynamic features. Evaluations demonstrate that sentence compression is a valuable component of a larger multi-document summarization framework.
  12. Hirao, T.; Okumura, M.; Yasuda, N.; Isozaki, H.: Supervised automatic evaluation for summarization with voted regression model (2007) 0.01 
    0.010336086 = product of:
  0.025840215 = sum of:
    0.014111101 = product of:
      0.0705555 = sum of:
        0.0705555 = weight(_text_:problem in 942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0705555 = score(doc=942,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.39792046 = fieldWeight in 942, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=942)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.011729115 = weight(_text_:of in 942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011729115 = score(doc=942,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 942, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=942)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The high quality evaluation of generated summaries is needed if we are to improve automatic summarization systems. Although human evaluation provides better results than automatic evaluation methods, its cost is huge and it is difficult to reproduce the results. Therefore, we need an automatic method that simulates human evaluation if we are to improve our summarization system efficiently. Although automatic evaluation methods have been proposed, they are unreliable when used for individual summaries. To solve this problem, we propose a supervised automatic evaluation method based on a new regression model called the voted regression model (VRM). VRM has two characteristics: (1) model selection based on 'corrected AIC' to avoid multicollinearity, (2) voting by the selected models to alleviate the problem of overfitting. Evaluation results obtained for TSC3 and DUC2004 show that our method achieved error reductions of about 17-51% compared with conventional automatic evaluation methods. Moreover, our method obtained the highest correlation coefficients in several different experiments.
  13. Wang, S.; Koopman, R.: Embed first, then predict (2019) 0.01 
    0.010232857 = product of:
  0.025582144 = sum of:
    0.0117592495 = product of:
      0.058796246 = sum of:
        0.058796246 = weight(_text_:problem in 5400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058796246 = score(doc=5400,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.33160037 = fieldWeight in 5400, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5400)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.013822895 = weight(_text_:of in 5400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013822895 = score(doc=5400,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 5400, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5400)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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.
    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.
  14. Abdi, A.; Shamsuddin, S.M.; Aliguliyev, R.M.: QMOS: Query-based multi-documents opinion-oriented summarization (2018) 0.01 
    0.009654707 = product of:
  0.024136767 = sum of:
    0.0066520358 = product of:
      0.033260178 = sum of:
        0.033260178 = weight(_text_:problem in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033260178 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.1875815 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.017484732 = weight(_text_:of in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017484732 = score(doc=5089,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.26765788 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Sentiment analysis concerns the study of opinions expressed in a text. This paper presents the QMOS method, which employs a combination of sentiment analysis and summarization approaches. It is a lexicon-based method to query-based multi-documents summarization of opinion expressed in reviews. QMOS combines multiple sentiment dictionaries to improve word coverage limit of the individual lexicon. A major problem for a dictionary-based approach is the semantic gap between the prior polarity of a word presented by a lexicon and the word polarity in a specific context. This is due to the fact that, the polarity of a word depends on the context in which it is being used. Furthermore, the type of a sentence can also affect the performance of a sentiment analysis approach. Therefore, to tackle the aforementioned challenges, QMOS integrates multiple strategies to adjust word prior sentiment orientation while also considers the type of sentence. QMOS also employs the Semantic Sentiment Approach to determine the sentiment score of a word if it is not included in a sentiment lexicon. On the other hand, the most of the existing methods fail to distinguish the meaning of a review sentence and user's query when both of them share the similar bag-of-words; hence there is often a conflict between the extracted opinionated sentences and users' needs. However, the summarization phase of QMOS is able to avoid extracting a review sentence whose similarity with the user's query is high but whose meaning is different. The method also employs the greedy algorithm and query expansion approach to reduce redundancy and bridge the lexical gaps for similar contexts that are expressed using different wording, respectively. Our experiment shows that the QMOS method can significantly improve the performance and make QMOS comparable to other existing methods.
  15. Ouyang, Y.; Li, W.; Li, S.; Lu, Q.: Intertopic information mining for query-based summarization (2010) 0.01 
    0.008855176 = product of:
  0.02213794 = sum of:
    0.008315044 = product of:
      0.041575223 = sum of:
        0.041575223 = weight(_text_:problem in 3459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041575223 = score(doc=3459,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 3459, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3459)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.013822895 = weight(_text_:of in 3459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013822895 = score(doc=3459,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 3459, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3459)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    In this article, the authors address the problem of sentence ranking in summarization. Although most existing summarization approaches are concerned with the information embodied in a particular topic (including a set of documents and an associated query) for sentence ranking, they propose a novel ranking approach that incorporates intertopic information mining. Intertopic information, in contrast to intratopic information, is able to reveal pairwise topic relationships and thus can be considered as the bridge across different topics. In this article, the intertopic information is used for transferring word importance learned from known topics to unknown topics under a learning-based summarization framework. To mine this information, the authors model the topic relationship by clustering all the words in both known and unknown topics according to various kinds of word conceptual labels, which indicate the roles of the words in the topic. Based on the mined relationships, we develop a probabilistic model using manually generated summaries provided for known topics to predict ranking scores for sentences in unknown topics. A series of experiments have been conducted on the Document Understanding Conference (DUC) 2006 data set. The evaluation results show that intertopic information is indeed effective for sentence ranking and the resultant summarization system performs comparably well to the best-performing DUC participating systems on the same data set.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S.1062-1072
  16. Cai, X.; Li, W.: Enhancing sentence-level clustering with integrated and interactive frameworks for theme-based summarization (2011) 0.01 
    0.008373425 = product of:
  0.020933563 = sum of:
    0.008315044 = product of:
      0.041575223 = sum of:
        0.041575223 = weight(_text_:problem in 4770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041575223 = score(doc=4770,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 4770, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4770)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.012618518 = weight(_text_:of in 4770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012618518 = score(doc=4770,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 4770, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4770)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Sentence clustering plays a pivotal role in theme-based summarization, which discovers topic themes defined as the clusters of highly related sentences to avoid redundancy and cover more diverse information. As the length of sentences is short and the content it contains is limited, the bag-of-words cosine similarity traditionally used for document clustering is no longer suitable. Special treatment for measuring sentence similarity is necessary. In this article, we study the sentence-level clustering problem. After exploiting concept- and context-enriched sentence vector representations, we develop two co-clustering frameworks to enhance sentence-level clustering for theme-based summarization-integrated clustering and interactive clustering-both allowing word and document to play an explicit role in sentence clustering as independent text objects rather than using word or concept as features of a sentence in a document set. In each framework, we experiment with two-level co-clustering (i.e., sentence-word co-clustering or sentence-document co-clustering) and three-level co-clustering (i.e., document-sentence-word co-clustering). Compared against concept- and context-oriented sentence-representation reformation, co-clustering shows a clear advantage in both intrinsic clustering quality evaluation and extrinsic summarization evaluation conducted on the Document Understanding Conferences (DUC) datasets.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.10, S.2067-2082
  17. Su, H.: Automatic abstracting (1996) 0.01 
    0.0059721726 = product of:
  0.029860863 = sum of:
    0.029860863 = weight(_text_:of in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029860863 = score(doc=150,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.45711282 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Presents an introductory overview of research into the automatic construction of abstracts from the texts of documents. Discusses the origin and definition of automatic abstracting; reasons for using automatic abstracting; methods of automatic abstracting; and evaluation problems
    Source
    Bulletin of the Library Association of China. 1996, no.56, Jun., S.41-47
  18. Atanassova, I.; Bertin, M.; Larivière, V.: On the composition of scientific abstracts (2016) 0.01 
    0.0054127416 = product of:
  0.027063707 = sum of:
    0.027063707 = weight(_text_:of in 3028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027063707 = score(doc=3028,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.41429368 = fieldWeight in 3028, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3028)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 72(2016) no.4, S.636-647
  19. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.; Neugebauer, E.: Professional summarizing : no cognitive simulation without observation (1998) 0.01 
    0.005107617 = product of:
  0.025538085 = sum of:
    0.025538085 = weight(_text_:of in 3243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025538085 = score(doc=3243,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 3243, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3243)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Develops a cognitive model of expert summarization, using 54 working processes of 6 experts recorded by thinking-alound protocols. It comprises up to 140 working steps. Components of the model are a toolbox of empirically founded strategies, principles of process organization, and interpreted working steps where the interaction of cognitive strategies can be investigated. In the computerized simulation the SimSum (Simulation of Summarizing) system, cognitive strategies are represented by object-oriented agents grouped around dedicated blckboards
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.6, S.486-506
  20. Xianghao, G.; Yixin, Z.; Li, Y.: ¬A new method of news test understanding and abstracting based on speech acts theory (1998) 0.01 
    0.005107617 = product of:
  0.025538085 = sum of:
    0.025538085 = weight(_text_:of in 3532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025538085 = score(doc=3532,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 3532, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3532)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information. 17(1998) no.4, S.257-262

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 93
  • d 3
  • chi 2
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 94
  • m 3
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects