Search (102 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Automatisches Abstracting"
  1. Jiang, Y.; Meng, R.; Huang, Y.; Lu, W.; Liu, J.: Generating keyphrases for readers : a controllable keyphrase generation framework (2023) 0.02 
    0.017813321 = product of:
  0.071253285 = sum of:
    0.03405392 = weight(_text_:wide in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03405392 = score(doc=1012,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13912784 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
    0.01069133 = weight(_text_:information in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01069133 = score(doc=1012,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
    0.015872208 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015872208 = score(doc=1012,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1012, 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=1012)
    0.010635821 = product of:
      0.021271642 = sum of:
        0.021271642 = weight(_text_:22 in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021271642 = score(doc=1012,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10995905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)
    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
  2. Jones, P.A.; Bradbeer, P.V.G.: Discovery of optimal weights in a concept selection system (1996) 0.01 
    0.012192727 = product of:
  0.06502788 = sum of:
    0.012095859 = weight(_text_:information in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012095859 = score(doc=6974,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 6974, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6974)
    0.035914708 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035914708 = score(doc=6974,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 6974, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6974)
    0.017017314 = product of:
      0.03403463 = sum of:
        0.03403463 = weight(_text_:22 in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03403463 = score(doc=6974,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10995905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = 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)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)
    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
  3. Dunlavy, D.M.; O'Leary, D.P.; Conroy, J.M.; Schlesinger, J.D.: QCS: A system for querying, clustering and summarizing documents (2007) 0.01 
    0.010011768 = product of:
  0.0533961 = sum of:
    0.009562616 = weight(_text_:information in 947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009562616 = score(doc=947,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.1734784 = fieldWeight in 947, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=947)
    0.021993177 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021993177 = score(doc=947,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.23154683 = fieldWeight in 947, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=947)
    0.021840302 = weight(_text_:software in 947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021840302 = score(doc=947,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.17532499 = fieldWeight in 947, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=947)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)
    Abstract
    Information retrieval systems consist of many complicated components. Research and development of such systems is often hampered by the difficulty in evaluating how each particular component would behave across multiple systems. We present a novel integrated information retrieval system-the Query, Cluster, Summarize (QCS) system-which is portable, modular, and permits experimentation with different instantiations of each of the constituent text analysis components. Most importantly, the combination of the three types of methods in the QCS design improves retrievals by providing users more focused information organized by topic. We demonstrate the improved performance by a series of experiments using standard test sets from the Document Understanding Conferences (DUC) as measured by the best known automatic metric for summarization system evaluation, ROUGE. Although the DUC data and evaluations were originally designed to test multidocument summarization, we developed a framework to extend it to the task of evaluation for each of the three components: query, clustering, and summarization. Under this framework, we then demonstrate that the QCS system (end-to-end) achieves performance as good as or better than the best summarization engines. Given a query, QCS retrieves relevant documents, separates the retrieved documents into topic clusters, and creates a single summary for each cluster. In the current implementation, Latent Semantic Indexing is used for retrieval, generalized spherical k-means is used for the document clustering, and a method coupling sentence "trimming" and a hidden Markov model, followed by a pivoted QR decomposition, is used to create a single extract summary for each cluster. The user interface is designed to provide access to detailed information in a compact and useful format. Our system demonstrates the feasibility of assembling an effective IR system from existing software libraries, the usefulness of the modularity of the design, and the value of this particular combination of modules.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.6, S.1588-1605
  4. Shen, D.; Yang, Q.; Chen, Z.: Noise reduction through summarization for Web-page classification (2007) 0.01 
    0.009447671 = product of:
  0.075581364 = sum of:
    0.06650947 = weight(_text_:web in 953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06650947 = score(doc=953,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.64902663 = fieldWeight in 953, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=953)
    0.009071894 = weight(_text_:information in 953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009071894 = score(doc=953,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 953, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=953)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)
    Abstract
    Due to a large variety of noisy information embedded in Web pages, Web-page classification is much more difficult than pure-text classification. In this paper, we propose to improve the Web-page classification performance by removing the noise through summarization techniques. We first give empirical evidence that ideal Web-page summaries generated by human editors can indeed improve the performance of Web-page classification algorithms. We then put forward a new Web-page summarization algorithm based on Web-page layout and evaluate it along with several other state-of-the-art text summarization algorithms on the LookSmart Web directory. Experimental results show that the classification algorithms (NB or SVM) augmented by any summarization approach can achieve an improvement by more than 5.0% as compared to pure-text-based classification algorithms. We further introduce an ensemble method to combine the different summarization algorithms. The ensemble summarization method achieves more than 12.0% improvement over pure-text based methods.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.6, S.1735-1747
  5. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.; Jauris-Heipke, S.; Pinsky, S.M.; Ulbricht, U.: Wissen gewinnen durch Wissen : Ontologiebasierte Informationsextraktion (2006) 0.01 
    0.0077202753 = product of:
  0.061762203 = sum of:
    0.056416538 = weight(_text_:benutzer in 6016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056416538 = score(doc=6016,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17907447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7029257 = idf(docFreq=400, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.31504512 = fieldWeight in 6016, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7029257 = idf(docFreq=400, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6016)
    0.005345665 = weight(_text_:information in 6016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005345665 = score(doc=6016,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 6016, 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=6016)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)
    Abstract
    Die ontologiebasierte Informationsextraktion, über die hier berichtet wird, ist Teil eines Systems zum automatischen Zusammenfassen, das sich am Vorgehen kompetenter Menschen orientiert. Dahinter steht die Annahme, dass Menschen die Ergebnisse eines Systems leichter übernehmen können, wenn sie mit Verfahren erarbeitet worden sind, die sie selbst auch benutzen. Das erste Anwendungsgebiet ist Knochenmarktransplantation (KMT). Im Kern des Systems Summit-BMT (Summarize It in Bone Marrow Transplantation) steht eine Ontologie des Fachgebietes. Sie ist als MySQL-Datenbank realisiert und versorgt menschliche Benutzer und Systemkomponenten mit Wissen. Summit-BMT unterstützt die Frageformulierung mit einem empirisch fundierten Szenario-Interface. Die Retrievalergebnisse werden durch ein Textpassagenretrieval vorselektiert und dann kognitiv fundierten Agenten unterbreitet, die unter Einsatz ihrer Wissensbasis / Ontologie genauer prüfen, ob die Propositionen aus der Benutzerfrage getroffen werden. Die relevanten Textclips aus dem Duelldokument werden in das Szenarioformular eingetragen und mit einem Link zu ihrem Vorkommen im Original präsentiert. In diesem Artikel stehen die Ontologie und ihr Gebrauch zur wissensbasierten Informationsextraktion im Mittelpunkt. Die Ontologiedatenbank hält unterschiedliche Wissenstypen so bereit, dass sie leicht kombiniert werden können: Konzepte, Propositionen und ihre syntaktisch-semantischen Schemata, Unifikatoren, Paraphrasen und Definitionen von Frage-Szenarios. Auf sie stützen sich die Systemagenten, welche von Menschen adaptierte Zusammenfassungsstrategien ausführen. Mängel in anderen Verarbeitungsschritten führen zu Verlusten, aber die eigentliche Qualität der Ergebnisse steht und fällt mit der Qualität der Ontologie. Erste Tests der Extraktionsleistung fallen verblüffend positiv aus.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.6/7, S.301-308
  6. Craven, T.C.: ¬An experiment in the use of tools for computer-assisted abstracting (1996) 0.01 
    0.0073949844 = product of:
  0.059159875 = sum of:
    0.012829596 = weight(_text_:information in 7426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012829596 = score(doc=7426,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.04633028 = weight(_text_:software in 7426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04633028 = score(doc=7426,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.3719205 = fieldWeight in 7426, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7426)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)
    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
    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
  7. Haag, M.: Automatic text summarization : Evaluation des Copernic Summarizer und mögliche Einsatzfelder in der Fachinformation der DaimlerCrysler AG (2002) 0.01 
    0.0071801296 = product of:
  0.057441037 = sum of:
    0.011110757 = weight(_text_:information in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011110757 = score(doc=649,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
    0.04633028 = weight(_text_:software in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04633028 = score(doc=649,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.3719205 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)
    Abstract
    An evaluation of the Copernic Summarizer, a software for automatically summarizing text in various data formats, is being presented. It shall be assessed if and how the Copernic Summarizer can reasonably be used in the DaimlerChrysler Information Division in order to enhance the quality of its information services. First, an introduction into Automatic Text Summarization is given and the Copernic Summarizer is being presented. Various methods for evaluating Automatic Text Summarization systems and software ergonomics are presented. Two evaluation forms are developed with which the employees of the Information Division shall evaluate the quality and relevance of the extracted keywords and summaries as well as the software's usability. The quality and relevance assessment is done by comparing the original text to the summaries. Finally, a recommendation is given concerning the use of the Copernic Summarizer.
  8. Craven, T.C.: Abstracts produced using computer assistance (2000) 0.01 
    0.006925272 = product of:
  0.055402175 = sum of:
    0.009071894 = weight(_text_:information in 4809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009071894 = score(doc=4809,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4809, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4809)
    0.04633028 = weight(_text_:software in 4809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04633028 = score(doc=4809,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.3719205 = fieldWeight in 4809, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, 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
  9. Kim, H.H.; Kim, Y.H.: Generic speech summarization of transcribed lecture videos : using tags and their semantic relations (2016) 0.01 
    0.005972568 = product of:
  0.031853694 = sum of:
    0.005345665 = weight(_text_:information in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005345665 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2640, 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=2640)
    0.015872208 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015872208 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2640, 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=2640)
    0.010635821 = product of:
      0.021271642 = sum of:
        0.021271642 = weight(_text_:22 in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021271642 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10995905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = 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)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.366-379
  10. Yulianti, E.; Huspi, S.; Sanderson, M.: Tweet-biased summarization (2016) 0.01 
    0.005776084 = product of:
  0.046208672 = sum of:
    0.03694971 = weight(_text_:web in 2926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03694971 = score(doc=2926,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 2926, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2926)
    0.009258964 = weight(_text_:information in 2926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009258964 = score(doc=2926,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2926, 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=2926)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)
    Abstract
    We examined whether the microblog comments given by people after reading a web document could be exploited to improve the accuracy of a web document summarization system. We examined the effect of social information (i.e., tweets) on the accuracy of the generated summaries by comparing the user preference for TBS (tweet-biased summary) with GS (generic summary). The result of crowdsourcing-based evaluation shows that the user preference for TBS was significantly higher than GS. We also took random samples of the documents to see the performance of summaries in a traditional evaluation using ROUGE, which, in general, TBS was also shown to be better than GS. We further analyzed the influence of the number of tweets pointed to a web document on summarization accuracy, finding a positive moderate correlation between the number of tweets pointed to a web document and the performance of generated TBS as measured by user preference. The results show that incorporating social information into the summary generation process can improve the accuracy of summary. The reason for people choosing one summary over another in a crowdsourcing-based evaluation is also presented in this article.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.6, S.1289-1300
  11. Lam, W.; Chan, K.; Radev, D.; Saggion, H.; Teufel, S.: Context-based generic cross-lingual retrieval of documents and automated summaries (2005) 0.01 
    0.005563512 = product of:
  0.044508096 = sum of:
    0.006414798 = weight(_text_:information in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006414798 = score(doc=1965,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1965, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1965)
    0.0380933 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0380933 = score(doc=1965,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 1965, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1965)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)
    Abstract
    We develop a context-based generic cross-lingual retrieval model that can deal with different language pairs. Our model considers contexts in the query translation process. Contexts in the query as weIl as in the documents based an co-occurrence statistics from different granularity of passages are exploited. We also investigate cross-lingual retrieval of automatic generic summaries. We have implemented our model for two different cross-lingual settings, namely, retrieving Chinese documents from English queries as weIl as retrieving English documents from Chinese queries. Extensive experiments have been conducted an a large-scale parallel corpus enabling studies an retrieval performance for two different cross-lingual settings of full-length documents as weIl as automated summaries.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.2, S.129-139
  12. Meyer, R.: Allein, es wär' so schön gewesen : Der Copernic Summarzier kann Internettexte leider nicht befriedigend und sinnvoll zusammenfassen (2002) 0.01 
    0.0054765674 = product of:
  0.04381254 = sum of:
    0.0055920132 = product of:
      0.0111840265 = sum of:
        0.0111840265 = weight(_text_:online in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0111840265 = score(doc=648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09529729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.11735933 = fieldWeight in 648, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.038220525 = weight(_text_:software in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038220525 = score(doc=648,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.30681872 = fieldWeight in 648, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=648)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)
    Abstract
    Das Netz hat die Jagd nach textlichen Inhalten erheblich erleichtert. Es ist so ein-fach, irgendeinen Beitrag über ein bestimmtes Thema zu finden, daß man eher über Fülle als über Mangel klagt. Suchmaschinen und Kataloge helfen beim Sichten, indem sie eine Vorauswahl von Links treffen. Das Programm "Copernic Summarizer" geht einen anderen Weg: Es erstellt Exzerpte beliebiger Texte und will damit die Lesezeit verkürzen. Decken wir über die lästige Zwangsregistrierung (unter Pflichtangabe einer Mailadresse) das Mäntelchen des Schweigens. Was folgt, geht rasch, nicht nur die ersten Schritte sind schnell vollzogen. Die Software läßt sich in verschiedenen Umgebungen einsetzen. Unterstützt werden Microsoft Office, einige Mailprogramme sowie der Acrobat Reader für PDF-Dateien. Besonders eignet sich das Verfahren freilich für Internetseiten. Der "Summarizer" nistet sich im Browser als Symbol ein. Und mit einem Klick faßt er einen Online Text in einem Extrafenster zusammen. Es handelt sich dabei nicht im eigentlichen Sinne um eine Zusammenfassung mit eigenen Worten, die in Kürze den Gesamtgehalt wiedergibt. Das Ergebnis ist schlichtes Kürzen, das sich noch dazu ziemlich brutal vollzieht, da grundsätzlich vollständige Sätze gestrichen werden. Die Software erfaßt den Text, versucht Schlüsselwörter zu ermitteln und entscheidet danach, welche Sätze wichtig sind und welche nicht. Das Verfahren mag den Entwicklungsaufwand verringert haben, dem Anwender hingegen bereitet es Probleme. Oftmals beziehen sich Sätze auf frühere Aussagen, etwa in Formulierungen wie "Diese Methode wird . . ." oder "Ein Jahr später . . ." In der Zusammenfassung fehlt entweder der Kontext dazu oder man kann nicht darauf vertrauen, daß der Bezug sich tatsächlich im voranstehenden Satz findet. Die Liste der Schlüsselwörter, die links eingeblendet wird, wirkt nicht immer glücklich. Teilweise finden sich unauffällige Begriffe wie "Anlaß" oder "zudem". Wenigstens lassen sich einzelne Begriffe entfernen, um das Ergebnis zu verfeinern. Hilfreich ist das mögliche Markieren der Schlüsselbegriffe im Text. Unverständlich bleibt hingegen, weshalb man nicht selbst relevante Wörter festlegen darf, die als Basis für die Zusammenfassung dienen. Das Kürzen des Textes ist in mehreren Stufen möglich, von fünf bis fünfzig Prozent. Fünf Prozent sind unbrauchbar; ein guter Kompromiß sind fünfundzwanzig. Allerdings nimmt es die Software nicht genau mit den eigenen Vorgaben. Bei kürzeren Texten ist die Zusammenfassung von angeblich einem Viertel fast genauso lang wie das Original; noch bei zwei Seiten eng bedrucktem Text (8 Kilobyte) entspricht das Exzerpt einem Drittel des Originals. Für gewöhnlich sind Webseiten geschmückt mit einem Menü, mit Werbung, mit Hinweiskästen und allerlei mehr. Sehr zuverlässig erkennt die Software, was überhaupt Fließtext ist; alles andere wird ausgefiltert. Da bedauert man es zuweilen, daß der Summarizer nicht den kompletten Text listet, damit er in einer angenehmen Umgebung schwarz auf weiß gelesen oder gedruckt wird. Wahlweise zum manuellen Auslösen der Zusammenfassung wird der "LiveSummarizer" aktiviert. Er verdichtet Text zeitgleich mit dem Aufrufen einer Seite, nimmt dafür aber ein Drittel der Bildschirmfläche ein - ein zu hoher Preis. Insgesamt fragen wir uns, wie man das Programm sinnvoll nutzen soll. Beim Verdichten von Nachrichten ist unsicher, ob Summarizer nicht wichtige Details unterschlägt. Bei langen Texten sorgen Fragen zum Kontext für Verwirrung. Sucht man nach der Antwort auf eine Detailfrage, hilft die Suchfunktion des Browsers oft schneller. Eine Zusammenfassung hätte auch dem Preis gutgetan: 100 Euro verlangt der deutsche Verleger Softline. Das scheint deutlich zu hoch gegriffen. Zumal das Zusammenfassen der einzige Zweck des Summarizers ist. Das Verwalten von Bookmarks und das Archivieren von Texten wären sinnvolle Ergänzungen gewesen.
  13. Johnson, F.C.; Paice, C.D.; Black, W.J.; Neal, A.P.: ¬The application of linguistic processing to automatic abstract generation (1993) 0.01 
    0.0053044683 = product of:
  0.042435747 = sum of:
    0.01069133 = weight(_text_:information in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01069133 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
    0.031744417 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031744417 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
  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.538-552.
  14. Salton, G.; Allan, J.; Buckley, C.; Singhal, A.: Automatic analysis, theme generation, and summarization of machine readable texts (1994) 0.01 
    0.0053044683 = product of:
  0.042435747 = sum of:
    0.01069133 = weight(_text_:information in 1949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01069133 = score(doc=1949,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1949, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1949)
    0.031744417 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031744417 = score(doc=1949,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1949, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1949)
  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.478-483.
  15. Marsh, E.: ¬A production rule system for message summarisation (1984) 0.01 
    0.0053044683 = product of:
  0.042435747 = sum of:
    0.01069133 = weight(_text_:information in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01069133 = score(doc=1956,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1956)
    0.031744417 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031744417 = score(doc=1956,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1956)
  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.
  16. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.; Ziegert, C.: SummIt-BMT : (Summarize It in BMT) in Diagnose und Therapie, Abschlussbericht (2002) 0.00 
    0.0049865646 = product of:
  0.079785034 = sum of:
    0.079785034 = weight(_text_:benutzer in 4497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079785034 = score(doc=4497,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17907447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7029257 = idf(docFreq=400, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.44554108 = fieldWeight in 4497, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7029257 = idf(docFreq=400, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4497)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)
    Abstract
    SummIt-BMT (Summarize It in Bone Marrow Transplantation) - das Zielsystem des Projektes - soll Ärzten in der Knochenmarktransplantation durch kognitiv fundiertes Zusammenfassen (Endres-Niggemeyer, 1998) aus dem WWW eine schnelle Informationsaufnahme ermöglichen. Im bmbffinanzierten Teilprojekt, über das hier zu berichten ist, liegt der Schwerpunkt auf den klinischen Fragestellungen. SummIt-BMT hat als zentrale Komponente eine KMT-Ontologie. Den Systemablauf veranschaulicht Abb. 1: Benutzer geben ihren Informationsbedarf in ein strukturiertes Szenario ein. Sie ziehen dazu Begriffe aus der Ontologie heran. Aus dem Szenario werden Fragen an Suchmaschinen abgeleitet. Die Summit-BMT-Metasuchmaschine stößt Google an und sucht in Medline, der zentralen Literaturdatenbank der Medizin. Das Suchergebnis wird aufbereitet. Dabei werden Links zu Volltexten verfolgt und die Volltexte besorgt. Die beschafften Dokumente werden mit einem Schlüsselwortretrieval auf Passagen untersucht, in denen sich Suchkonzepte aus der Frage / Ontologie häufen. Diese Passagen werden zum Zusammenfassen vorgeschlagen. In ihnen werden die Aussagen syntaktisch analysiert. Die Systemagenten untersuchen sie. Lassen Aussagen sich mit einer semantischen Relation an die Frage anbinden, tragen also zur deren Beantwortung bei, werden sie in die Zusammenfassung aufgenommen, es sei denn, andere Agenten machen Hinderungsgründe geltend, z.B. Redundanz. Das Ergebnis der Zusammenfassung wird in das Frage/Antwort-Szenario integriert. Präsentiert werden Exzerpte aus den Quelldokumenten. Mit einem Link vermitteln sie einen sofortigen Rückgriff auf die Quelle. SummIt-BMT ist zum nächsten Durchgang von Informationssuche und Zusammenfassung bereit, sobald der Benutzer dies wünscht.
  17. Summarising software for publishing (1996) 0.00 
    0.004728564 = product of:
  0.075657025 = sum of:
    0.075657025 = weight(_text_:software in 5121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075657025 = score(doc=5121,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.6073436 = fieldWeight in 5121, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5121)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)
    Abstract
    Reviews 4 software packages designed to provide accurate and indicative summaries of documents by taking the documents and creating distinctive abstracts from them. The products reviewed are: Oracle's ConText; InText's Object Analyzer; Iconovex's AnchorPage; and Software Scientific's Interrogator. Techniques used by the products include: the use of dictionaries of known words and phrases to interpret documents; and heuristic analysis involving weighting all the words in the document solely on their occurrence and position within the document
  18. Goh, A.; Hui, S.C.: TES: a text extraction system (1996) 0.00 
    0.0042654304 = product of:
  0.034123443 = sum of:
    0.017106129 = weight(_text_:information in 6599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017106129 = score(doc=6599,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 6599, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6599)
    0.017017314 = product of:
      0.03403463 = sum of:
        0.03403463 = weight(_text_:22 in 6599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03403463 = score(doc=6599,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10995905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = 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)
    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
    Source
    Microcomputers for information management. 13(1996) no.1, S.41-55
  19. Xu, D.; Cheng, G.; Qu, Y.: Preferences in Wikipedia abstracts : empirical findings and implications for automatic entity summarization (2014) 0.00 
    0.0039052146 = product of:
  0.031241717 = sum of:
    0.022169823 = weight(_text_:web in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022169823 = score(doc=2700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2700, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2700)
    0.009071894 = weight(_text_:information in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009071894 = score(doc=2700,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2700, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2700)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)
    Abstract
    The volume of entity-centric structured data grows rapidly on the Web. The description of an entity, composed of property-value pairs (a.k.a. features), has become very large in many applications. To avoid information overload, efforts have been made to automatically select a limited number of features to be shown to the user based on certain criteria, which is called automatic entity summarization. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of extensive studies on how humans rank and select features in practice, which can provide empirical support and inspire future research. In this article, we present a large-scale statistical analysis of the descriptions of entities provided by DBpedia and the abstracts of their corresponding Wikipedia articles, to empirically study, along several different dimensions, which kinds of features are preferable when humans summarize. Implications for automatic entity summarization are drawn from the findings.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 50(2014) no.2, S.284-296
  20. Gomez, J.; Allen, K.; Matney, M.; Awopetu, T.; Shafer, S.: Experimenting with a machine generated annotations pipeline (2020) 0.00 
    0.0038608566 = product of:
  0.061773706 = sum of:
    0.061773706 = weight(_text_:software in 657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061773706 = score(doc=657,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.49589399 = fieldWeight in 657, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=657)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)
    Abstract
    The UCLA Library reorganized its software developers into focused subteams with one, the Labs Team, dedicated to conducting experiments. In this article we describe our first attempt at conducting a software development experiment, in which we attempted to improve our digital library's search results with metadata from cloud-based image tagging services. We explore the findings and discuss the lessons learned from our first attempt at running an experiment.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 88
  • d 13
  • chi 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 97
  • el 3
  • m 2
  • r 2
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects