Search (97 results, page 2 of 5)

0.005791272 = product of:
  0.023165088 = sum of:
    0.012473618 = weight(_text_:information in 3028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012473618 = score(doc=3028,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 3028, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3028)
    0.01069147 = product of:
      0.02138294 = sum of:
        0.02138294 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02138294 = score(doc=3028,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3028, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3028)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

0.0053825392 = product of:
  0.021530157 = sum of:
    0.007201646 = weight(_text_:information in 5290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007201646 = score(doc=5290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5290)
    0.014328511 = product of:
      0.028657023 = sum of:
        0.028657023 = weight(_text_:22 in 5290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028657023 = score(doc=5290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.0044732788 = product of:
  0.017893115 = sum of:
    0.007201646 = weight(_text_:information in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007201646 = score(doc=601,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 601, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=601)
    0.01069147 = product of:
      0.02138294 = sum of:
        0.02138294 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02138294 = score(doc=601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.8, S.653-677

0.003564633 = product of:
  0.028517064 = sum of:
    0.028517064 = weight(_text_:information in 2928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028517064 = score(doc=2928,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 2928, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2928)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.5, S.753-767

0.003564633 = product of:
  0.028517064 = sum of:
    0.028517064 = weight(_text_:information in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028517064 = score(doc=4667,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 4667, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4667)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Journal of information science. 29(2003) no.5, S.405-418

0.0031184044 = product of:
  0.024947235 = sum of:
    0.024947235 = weight(_text_:information in 2932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024947235 = score(doc=2932,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.3359395 = fieldWeight in 2932, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2932)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Description of the problems for summary generation, the applications developed (for basket ball games - STREAK and for telephone network planning activity - PLANDOC), the linguistic constructions that the systems use to convey information concisely and the textual constraints that determine what information gets included

Source

Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.5, S.703-733

0.0028806585 = product of:
  0.023045268 = sum of:
    0.023045268 = weight(_text_:information in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023045268 = score(doc=1255,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.53, [=Suppl.16]

0.0028657021 = product of:
  0.022925617 = sum of:
    0.022925617 = product of:
      0.045851234 = sum of:
        0.045851234 = weight(_text_:22 in 6751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045851234 = score(doc=6751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

6. 3.1997 16:22:15

0.002700617 = product of:
  0.021604937 = sum of:
    0.021604937 = weight(_text_:information in 3459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021604937 = score(doc=3459,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.2909321 = fieldWeight in 3459, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3459)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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

0.0026460537 = product of:
  0.02116843 = sum of:
    0.02116843 = weight(_text_:information in 2349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02116843 = score(doc=2349,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 2349, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2349)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Summarization entails analysis of source material, selection of key information, condensation of this, and generation of a compct summary form. While there habe been many investigations into the automatic summarization of text, relatively little attention has been given to the summarization of information from structured information sources such as data of knowledge bases, despite this being a desirable capability for a number of application areas including report generation from databases (e.g. weather, financial, medical) and simulation (e.g. military, manufacturing, aconomic). After a brief introduction indicating the main elements of summarization and referring to some illustrative approaches to it, considers pecific issues in the generation of text summaries of event data, describes a system, SumGen, which selects key information from an event database by reasoning about event frequencies, frequencies of relations between events, and domain specific importance measures. Describes how Sum Gen then aggregates similar information and plans a summary presentations tailored to stereotypical users

Source

Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.5, S.735-751

0.0025205764 = product of:
  0.02016461 = sum of:
    0.02016461 = weight(_text_:information in 2333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02016461 = score(doc=2333,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 2333, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2333)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. 3. Aufl. Hrsg.: M. Buder u.a. Bd.1

0.0025205764 = product of:
  0.02016461 = sum of:
    0.02016461 = weight(_text_:information in 3667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02016461 = score(doc=3667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 3667, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3667)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Information processing and management. 37(2001) no.2, S.221-230

0.0025205764 = product of:
  0.02016461 = sum of:
    0.02016461 = weight(_text_:information in 3343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02016461 = score(doc=3343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 3343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3343)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Information processing and management. 36(2000) no.4, S.659-682

0.0024947235 = product of:
  0.019957788 = sum of:
    0.019957788 = weight(_text_:information in 939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019957788 = score(doc=939,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 939, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=939)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Generating summaries that meet the information needs of a user relies on (1) several forms of question decomposition; (2) different summarization approaches; and (3) textual inference for combining the summarization strategies. This novel framework for summarization has the advantage of producing highly responsive summaries, as indicated by the evaluation results.

Source

Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.6, S.1619-1642

0.0024155057 = product of:
  0.019324046 = sum of:
    0.019324046 = weight(_text_:information in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019324046 = score(doc=949,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

We propose a new method for using anaphoric information in Latent Semantic Analysis (lsa), and discuss its application to develop an lsa-based summarizer which achieves a significantly better performance than a system not using anaphoric information, and a better performance by the rouge measure than all but one of the single-document summarizers participating in DUC-2002. Anaphoric information is automatically extracted using a new release of our own anaphora resolution system, guitar, which incorporates proper noun resolution. Our summarizer also includes a new approach for automatically identifying the dimensionality reduction of a document on the basis of the desired summarization percentage. Anaphoric information is also used to check the coherence of the summary produced by our summarizer, by a reference checker module which identifies anaphoric resolution errors caused by sentence extraction.

Source

Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.6, S.1663-1680

0.0022050447 = product of:
  0.017640358 = sum of:
    0.017640358 = weight(_text_:information in 2054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017640358 = score(doc=2054,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 2054, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2054)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The paper presents a study investigating the effects of incorporating novelty detection in automatic text summarisation. Condensing a textual document, automatic text summarisation can reduce the need to refer to the source document. It also offers a means to deliver device-friendly content when accessing information in non-traditional environments. An effective method of summarisation could be to produce a summary that includes only novel information. However, a consequence of focusing exclusively on novel parts may result in a loss of context, which may have an impact on the correct interpretation of the summary, with respect to the source document. In this study we compare two strategies to produce summaries that incorporate novelty in different ways: a constant length summary, which contains only novel sentences, and an incremental summary, containing additional sentences that provide context. The aim is to establish whether a summary that contains only novel sentences provides sufficient basis to determine relevance of a document, or if indeed we need to include additional sentences to provide context. Findings from the study seem to suggest that there is only a minimal difference in performance for the tasks we set our users and that the presence of contextual information is not so important. However, for the case of mobile information access, a summary that contains only novel information does offer benefits, given bandwidth constraints.

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.2, S.663-686

0.002182883 = product of:
  0.017463064 = sum of:
    0.017463064 = weight(_text_:information in 3748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017463064 = score(doc=3748,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 3748, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3748)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

After lying dormant for a few decades, the field of automated text summarization has experienced a tremendous resurgence of interest. Recently, many new algorithms and techniques have been proposed for identifying important information in single documents and document collections, and for mapping this information into grammatical, cohesive, and coherent abstracts. Since 1997, annual workshops, conferences, and large-scale comparative evaluations have provided a rich environment for exchanging ideas between researchers in Asia, Europe, and North America. This entry reviews the main developments in the field and provides a guiding map to those interested in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of an increasingly ubiquitous technology.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.0021604938 = product of:
  0.01728395 = sum of:
    0.01728395 = weight(_text_:information in 7426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01728395 = score(doc=7426,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 7426, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7426)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Learned Information

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

0.0021604938 = product of:
  0.01728395 = sum of:
    0.01728395 = weight(_text_:information in 7800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01728395 = score(doc=7800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 7800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7800)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation: ein Handbuch zur Einführung in die fachliche Informationsarbeit. 4. Aufl. Hrsg.: M. Buder u.a

0.0021604938 = product of:
  0.01728395 = sum of:
    0.01728395 = weight(_text_:information in 2994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01728395 = score(doc=2994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2994, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2994)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

New review of information and library research. 5(1999), S.49-63