Search (105 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Automatisches Abstracting"
  1. Haag, M.: Automatic text summarization : Evaluation des Copernic Summarizer und mögliche Einsatzfelder in der Fachinformation der DaimlerCrysler AG (2002) 0.08 
    0.07893601 = product of:
  0.1691486 = sum of:
    0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02783884 = score(doc=649,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
    0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02783884 = score(doc=649,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
    0.04823622 = weight(_text_:software in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04823622 = score(doc=649,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12969498 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = 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)
    0.010645939 = weight(_text_:und in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010645939 = score(doc=649,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07245795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
    0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02783884 = score(doc=649,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
    0.008019937 = weight(_text_:in in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008019937 = score(doc=649,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
    0.018729964 = weight(_text_:der in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018729964 = score(doc=649,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.073026784 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.25648075 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
  0.46666667 = coord(7/15)
    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.
    Date
    27. 2.1999 16:23:24
    Footnote
    Diplomarbeit an der HBI Stuttgart. - Vgl. auch: nfd 53(2002) H.4, S.243-244
  2. Kuhlen, R.: In Richtung Summarizing für Diskurse in K3 (2006) 0.07 
    0.06631857 = product of:
  0.16579643 = sum of:
    0.032478645 = weight(_text_:23 in 6067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032478645 = score(doc=6067,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.27719048 = fieldWeight in 6067, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6067)
    0.032478645 = weight(_text_:23 in 6067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032478645 = score(doc=6067,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.27719048 = fieldWeight in 6067, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6067)
    0.027772553 = weight(_text_:und in 6067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027772553 = score(doc=6067,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07245795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.38329202 = fieldWeight in 6067, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6067)
    0.032478645 = weight(_text_:23 in 6067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032478645 = score(doc=6067,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.27719048 = fieldWeight in 6067, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6067)
    0.012377611 = weight(_text_:in in 6067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012377611 = score(doc=6067,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.27833787 = fieldWeight in 6067, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6067)
    0.028210325 = weight(_text_:der in 6067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028210325 = score(doc=6067,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.073026784 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.38630107 = fieldWeight in 6067, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6067)
  0.4 = coord(6/15)
    Abstract
    Der Bedarf nach Summarizing-Leistungen, in Situationen der Fachinformation, aber auch in kommunikativen Umgebungen (Diskursen) wird aufgezeigt. Summarizing wird dazu in den Kontext des bisherigen (auch automatischen) Abstracting/Extracting gestellt. Der aktuelle Forschungsstand, vor allem mit Blick auf Multi-Document-Summarizing, wird dargestellt. Summarizing ist eine wichtige Funktion in komplex und umfänglich werdenden Diskussionen in elektronischen Foren. Dies wird am Beispiel des e-Learning-Systems K3 aufgezeigt. Rudimentäre Summarizing-Funktionen von K3 und des zugeordneten K3VIS-Systems werden dargestellt. Der Rahmen für ein elaborierteres, Template-orientiertes Summarizing unter Verwendung der vielfältigen Auszeichnungsfunktionen von K3 (Rollen, Diskurstypen, Inhaltstypen etc.) wird aufgespannt.
    Date
    13.10.2006 9:35:23
    Source
    Information und Sprache: Beiträge zu Informationswissenschaft, Computerlinguistik, Bibliothekswesen und verwandten Fächern. Festschrift für Harald H. Zimmermann. Herausgegeben von Ilse Harms, Heinz-Dirk Luckhardt und Hans W. Giessen
  3. Jones, P.A.; Bradbeer, P.V.G.: Discovery of optimal weights in a concept selection system (1996) 0.04 
    0.044620067 = product of:
  0.1338602 = sum of:
    0.037118454 = weight(_text_:23 in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037118454 = score(doc=6974,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.31678912 = fieldWeight in 6974, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6974)
    0.037118454 = weight(_text_:23 in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037118454 = score(doc=6974,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.31678912 = fieldWeight in 6974, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6974)
    0.037118454 = weight(_text_:23 in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037118454 = score(doc=6974,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.31678912 = fieldWeight in 6974, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6974)
    0.01069325 = weight(_text_:in in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01069325 = score(doc=6974,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 6974, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6974)
    0.011811584 = product of:
      0.035434753 = sum of:
        0.035434753 = weight(_text_:22 in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035434753 = score(doc=6974,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(5/15)
    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. Xianghao, G.; Yixin, Z.; Li, Y.: ¬A new method of news test understanding and abstracting based on speech acts theory (1998) 0.03 
    0.031120533 = product of:
  0.11670199 = sum of:
    0.037118454 = weight(_text_:23 in 3532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037118454 = score(doc=3532,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.31678912 = fieldWeight in 3532, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3532)
    0.037118454 = weight(_text_:23 in 3532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037118454 = score(doc=3532,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.31678912 = fieldWeight in 3532, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3532)
    0.037118454 = weight(_text_:23 in 3532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037118454 = score(doc=3532,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.31678912 = fieldWeight in 3532, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3532)
    0.005346625 = weight(_text_:in in 3532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005346625 = score(doc=3532,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 3532, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3532)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Date
    13. 5.1996 21:43:23
    Footnote
    [In Chinesisch]
  5. Su, H.: Automatic abstracting (1996) 0.03 
    0.02783884 = product of:
  0.13919419 = sum of:
    0.046398066 = weight(_text_:23 in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046398066 = score(doc=150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.3959864 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
    0.046398066 = weight(_text_:23 in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046398066 = score(doc=150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.3959864 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
    0.046398066 = weight(_text_:23 in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046398066 = score(doc=150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.3959864 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)
    Date
    13. 5.1996 21:43:23
  6. Lee, J.-H.; Park, S.; Ahn, C.-M.; Kim, D.: Automatic generic document summarization based on non-negative matrix factorization (2009) 0.03 
    0.027230462 = product of:
  0.10211423 = sum of:
    0.032478645 = weight(_text_:23 in 2448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032478645 = score(doc=2448,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.27719048 = fieldWeight in 2448, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2448)
    0.032478645 = weight(_text_:23 in 2448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032478645 = score(doc=2448,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.27719048 = fieldWeight in 2448, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2448)
    0.032478645 = weight(_text_:23 in 2448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032478645 = score(doc=2448,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.27719048 = fieldWeight in 2448, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2448)
    0.004678297 = weight(_text_:in in 2448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004678297 = score(doc=2448,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 2448, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2448)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    In existing unsupervised methods, Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) is used for sentence selection. However, the obtained results are less meaningful, because singular vectors are used as the bases for sentence selection from given documents, and singular vector components can have negative values. We propose a new unsupervised method using Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF) to select sentences for automatic generic document summarization. The proposed method uses non-negative constraints, which are more similar to the human cognition process. As a result, the method selects more meaningful sentences for generic document summarization than those selected using LSA.
    Date
    23. 3.2013 13:24:19
  7. Kuhlen, R.: Abstracts, abstracting : intellektuelle und maschinelle Verfahren (1997) 0.03 
    0.026894229 = product of:
  0.100853354 = sum of:
    0.030111264 = weight(_text_:und in 7800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030111264 = score(doc=7800,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07245795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.41556883 = fieldWeight in 7800, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7800)
    0.04109465 = weight(_text_:zur in 7800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04109465 = score(doc=7800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.100663416 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.40823817 = fieldWeight in 7800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7800)
    0.008019937 = weight(_text_:in in 7800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008019937 = score(doc=7800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 7800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7800)
    0.021627497 = weight(_text_:der in 7800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021627497 = score(doc=7800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.073026784 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.29615843 = fieldWeight in 7800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7800)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Source
    Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation: ein Handbuch zur Einführung in die fachliche Informationsarbeit. 4. Aufl. Hrsg.: M. Buder u.a
  8. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: ¬An empirical process model of abstracting (1992) 0.02 
    0.024542393 = product of:
  0.09203397 = sum of:
    0.021291878 = weight(_text_:und in 8834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021291878 = score(doc=8834,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07245795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 8834, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8834)
    0.04109465 = weight(_text_:zur in 8834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04109465 = score(doc=8834,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.100663416 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.40823817 = fieldWeight in 8834, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8834)
    0.008019937 = weight(_text_:in in 8834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008019937 = score(doc=8834,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 8834, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8834)
    0.021627497 = weight(_text_:der in 8834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021627497 = score(doc=8834,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.073026784 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.29615843 = fieldWeight in 8834, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8834)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Series
    Schriften zur Informationswissenschaft; Bd.7
    Source
    Mensch und Maschine: Informationelle Schnittstellen der Kommunikation. Proc. des 3. Int. Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI'92), 5.-7.11.1992 in Saarbrücken. Hrsg.: H.H. Zimmermann, H.-D. Luckhardt u. A. Schulz
  9. Sparck Jones, K.: Automatic summarising : the state of the art (2007) 0.02 
    0.024409723 = product of:
  0.091536455 = sum of:
    0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02783884 = score(doc=932,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 932, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=932)
    0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02783884 = score(doc=932,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 932, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=932)
    0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02783884 = score(doc=932,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 932, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=932)
    0.008019937 = weight(_text_:in in 932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008019937 = score(doc=932,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 932, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=932)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    This paper reviews research on automatic summarising in the last decade. This work has grown, stimulated by technology and by evaluation programmes. The paper uses several frameworks to organise the review, for summarising itself, for the factors affecting summarising, for systems, and for evaluation. The review examines the evaluation strategies applied to summarising, the issues they raise, and the major programmes. It considers the input, purpose and output factors investigated in recent summarising research, and discusses the classes of strategy, extractive and non-extractive, that have been explored, illustrating the range of systems built. The conclusions drawn are that automatic summarisation has made valuable progress, with useful applications, better evaluation, and more task understanding. But summarising systems are still poorly motivated in relation to the factors affecting them, and evaluation needs taking much further to engage with the purposes summaries are intended to serve and the contexts in which they are used.
    Date
    26.12.2007 14:40:23
  10. Díaz, A.; Gervás, P.: User-model based personalized summarization (2007) 0.02 
    0.024409723 = product of:
  0.091536455 = sum of:
    0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02783884 = score(doc=952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 952, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=952)
    0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02783884 = score(doc=952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 952, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=952)
    0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02783884 = score(doc=952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 952, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=952)
    0.008019937 = weight(_text_:in in 952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008019937 = score(doc=952,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 952, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=952)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    The potential of summary personalization is high, because a summary that would be useless to decide the relevance of a document if summarized in a generic manner, may be useful if the right sentences are selected that match the user interest. In this paper we defend the use of a personalized summarization facility to maximize the density of relevance of selections sent by a personalized information system to a given user. The personalization is applied to the digital newspaper domain and it used a user-model that stores long and short term interests using four reference systems: sections, categories, keywords and feedback terms. On the other side, it is crucial to measure how much information is lost during the summarization process, and how this information loss may affect the ability of the user to judge the relevance of a given document. The results obtained in two personalization systems show that personalized summaries perform better than generic and generic-personalized summaries in terms of identifying documents that satisfy user preferences. We also considered a user-centred direct evaluation that showed a high level of user satisfaction with the summaries.
    Date
    26.12.2007 16:27:23
  11. Meyer, R.: Allein, es wär' so schön gewesen : Der Copernic Summarzier kann Internettexte leider nicht befriedigend und sinnvoll zusammenfassen (2002) 0.02 
    0.023460645 = product of:
  0.08797742 = sum of:
    0.03979285 = weight(_text_:software in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03979285 = score(doc=648,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12969498 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = 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)
    0.017564904 = weight(_text_:und in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017564904 = score(doc=648,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07245795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.24241515 = fieldWeight in 648, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=648)
    0.0061888057 = weight(_text_:in in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061888057 = score(doc=648,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.13916893 = fieldWeight in 648, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=648)
    0.024430858 = weight(_text_:der in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024430858 = score(doc=648,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.073026784 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.33454654 = fieldWeight in 648, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=648)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    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.
  12. Hahn, U.: Automatisches Abstracting (2013) 0.02 
    0.022411857 = product of:
  0.08404446 = sum of:
    0.02509272 = weight(_text_:und in 721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02509272 = score(doc=721,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07245795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.34630734 = fieldWeight in 721, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=721)
    0.03424554 = weight(_text_:zur in 721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03424554 = score(doc=721,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.100663416 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.34019846 = fieldWeight in 721, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=721)
    0.0066832816 = weight(_text_:in in 721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066832816 = score(doc=721,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 721, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=721)
    0.018022915 = weight(_text_:der in 721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018022915 = score(doc=721,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.073026784 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.2467987 = fieldWeight in 721, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=721)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Source
    Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. Handbuch zur Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft und -praxis. 6., völlig neu gefaßte Ausgabe. Hrsg. von R. Kuhlen, W. Semar u. D. Strauch. Begründet von Klaus Laisiepen, Ernst Lutterbeck, Karl-Heinrich Meyer-Uhlenried
  13. Dammeyer, A.; Jürgensen, W.; Krüwel, C.; Poliak, E.; Ruttkowski, S.; Schäfer, Th.; Sirava, M.; Hermes, T.: Videoanalyse mit DiVA (1998) 0.02 
    0.021452013 = product of:
  0.080445044 = sum of:
    0.021291878 = weight(_text_:und in 23) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021291878 = score(doc=23,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07245795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 23, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=23)
    0.020547325 = weight(_text_:zur in 23) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020547325 = score(doc=23,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.100663416 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.20411909 = fieldWeight in 23, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=23)
    0.008019937 = weight(_text_:in in 23) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008019937 = score(doc=23,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 23, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=23)
    0.030585902 = weight(_text_:der in 23) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030585902 = score(doc=23,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.073026784 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.4188313 = fieldWeight in 23, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=23)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Die Bedeutung von Videos nimmt für multimediale Systeme stetig zu. Dabei existiert eine Vielzahl von Produkten zur Betrachtung von Videos, allerdings nur wenige Ansätze, den Inhalt eines Videos zu erschließen. Das DiVA-System, welches an der Universität Bremen im Rahmen eines studentischen Projektes entwickelt wird, dient der automatischen Analyse von MPEG-I Videofilmen. Der dabei verfolgte Ansatz läßt sich in vier Phasen gliedern. Zunächst wird der Videofilm durch eine Shotanalyse in seine einzelnen Kameraeinstellungen (Shots) unterteilt. Darauf aufbauend findet eine Kamerabewegungsanalyse sowie die Erstellung von Mosaicbildern statt. Mit Methoden der künstlichen Intelligenz und der digitalen Bildverarbeitung wird das analysierte Material nach Bild- und Toninformationen ausgewertet. Das Resultat ist eine textuelle Beschreibung eines Videofilms, auf der mit Hilfe von Text-Retrieval-Systemen recherchiert werden kann
    Imprint
    Bremen : Universität Bremen / Fachbereich Mathematik und Informatik
    Source
    Inhaltsbezogene Suche von Bildern und Videosequenzen in digitalen multimedialen Archiven: Beiträge eines Workshops der KI'98 am 16./17.9.1998 in Bremen. Hrsg.: N. Luth
  14. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.; Ziegert, C.: SummIt-BMT : (Summarize It in BMT) in Diagnose und Therapie, Abschlussbericht (2002) 0.02 
    0.018912388 = product of:
  0.07092145 = sum of:
    0.017743232 = weight(_text_:und in 4497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017743232 = score(doc=4497,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07245795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 4497, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4497)
    0.01712277 = weight(_text_:zur in 4497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01712277 = score(doc=4497,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.100663416 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.17009923 = fieldWeight in 4497, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4497)
    0.010567197 = weight(_text_:in in 4497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010567197 = score(doc=4497,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.2376267 = fieldWeight in 4497, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4497)
    0.02548825 = weight(_text_:der in 4497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02548825 = score(doc=4497,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.073026784 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.34902605 = fieldWeight in 4497, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4497)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    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.
  15. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.; Jauris-Heipke, S.; Pinsky, S.M.; Ulbricht, U.: Wissen gewinnen durch Wissen : Ontologiebasierte Informationsextraktion (2006) 0.02 
    0.018818969 = product of:
  0.07057113 = sum of:
    0.026614847 = weight(_text_:und in 6016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026614847 = score(doc=6016,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07245795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.3673144 = fieldWeight in 6016, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6016)
    0.01712277 = weight(_text_:zur in 6016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01712277 = score(doc=6016,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.100663416 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.17009923 = fieldWeight in 6016, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6016)
    0.0066832816 = weight(_text_:in in 6016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066832816 = score(doc=6016,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 6016, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6016)
    0.020150231 = weight(_text_:der in 6016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020150231 = score(doc=6016,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.073026784 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.27592933 = fieldWeight in 6016, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6016)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    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
  16. Kuhlen, R.: Informationsaufbereitung III : Referieren (Abstracts - Abstracting - Grundlagen) (2004) 0.02 
    0.015783655 = product of:
  0.0591887 = sum of:
    0.014194585 = weight(_text_:und in 2917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014194585 = score(doc=2917,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07245795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 2917, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2917)
    0.019372202 = weight(_text_:zur in 2917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019372202 = score(doc=2917,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.100663416 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.19244531 = fieldWeight in 2917, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2917)
    0.006548252 = weight(_text_:in in 2917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006548252 = score(doc=2917,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.14725187 = fieldWeight in 2917, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2917)
    0.019073661 = weight(_text_:der in 2917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019073661 = score(doc=2917,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.073026784 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.2611872 = fieldWeight in 2917, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2917)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Was ein Abstract (im Folgenden synonym mit Referat oder Kurzreferat gebraucht) ist, legt das American National Standards Institute in einer Weise fest, die sicherlich von den meisten Fachleuten akzeptiert werden kann: "An abstract is defined as an abbreviated, accurate representation of the contents of a document"; fast genauso die deutsche Norm DIN 1426: "Das Kurzreferat gibt kurz und klar den Inhalt des Dokuments wieder." Abstracts gehören zum wissenschaftlichen Alltag. Weitgehend allen Publikationen, zumindest in den naturwissenschaftlichen, technischen, informationsbezogenen oder medizinischen Bereichen, gehen Abstracts voran, "prefe-rably prepared by its author(s) for publication with it". Es gibt wohl keinen Wissenschaftler, der nicht irgendwann einmal ein Abstract geschrieben hätte. Gehört das Erstellen von Abstracts dann überhaupt zur dokumentarischen bzw informationswissenschaftlichen Methodenlehre, wenn es jeder kann? Was macht den informationellen Mehrwert aus, der durch Expertenreferate gegenüber Laienreferaten erzeugt wird? Dies ist nicht so leicht zu beantworten, zumal geeignete Bewertungsverfahren fehlen, die Qualität von Abstracts vergleichend "objektiv" zu messen. Abstracts werden in erheblichem Umfang von Informationsspezialisten erstellt, oft unter der Annahme, dass Autoren selber dafür weniger geeignet sind. Vergegenwärtigen wir uns, was wir über Abstracts und Abstracting wissen. Ein besonders gelungenes Abstract ist zuweilen klarer als der Ursprungstext selber, darf aber nicht mehr Information als dieser enthalten: "Good abstracts are highly structured, concise, and coherent, and are the result of a thorough analysis of the content of the abstracted materials. Abstracts may be more readable than the basis documents, but because of size constraints they rarely equal and never surpass the information content of the basic document". Dies ist verständlich, denn ein "Abstract" ist zunächst nichts anderes als ein Ergebnis des Vorgangs einer Abstraktion. Ohne uns zu sehr in die philosophischen Hintergründe der Abstraktion zu verlieren, besteht diese doch "in der Vernachlässigung von bestimmten Vorstellungsbzw. Begriffsinhalten, von welchen zugunsten anderer Teilinhalte abgesehen, abstrahiert' wird. Sie ist stets verbunden mit einer Fixierung von (interessierenden) Merkmalen durch die aktive Aufmerksamkeit, die unter einem bestimmten pragmatischen Gesichtspunkt als wesentlich' für einen vorgestellten bzw für einen unter einen Begriff fallenden Gegenstand (oder eine Mehrheit von Gegenständen) betrachtet werden". Abstracts reduzieren weniger Begriffsinhalte, sondern Texte bezüglich ihres proportionalen Gehaltes. Borko/ Bernier haben dies sogar quantifiziert; sie schätzen den Reduktionsfaktor auf 1:10 bis 1:12
    Source
    Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. 5., völlig neu gefaßte Ausgabe. 2 Bde. Hrsg. von R. Kuhlen, Th. Seeger u. D. Strauch. Begründet von Klaus Laisiepen, Ernst Lutterbeck, Karl-Heinrich Meyer-Uhlenried. Bd.1: Handbuch zur Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft und -praxis
  17. Hahn, U.: ¬Die Verdichtung textuellen Wissens zu Information : vom Wandel methodischer Paradigmen beim automatischen Abstracting (2004) 0.01 
    0.014429085 = product of:
  0.072145425 = sum of:
    0.03424554 = weight(_text_:zur in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03424554 = score(doc=4667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.100663416 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.34019846 = fieldWeight in 4667, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4667)
    0.0066832816 = weight(_text_:in in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066832816 = score(doc=4667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 4667, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4667)
    0.031216605 = weight(_text_:der in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031216605 = score(doc=4667,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.073026784 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.42746788 = fieldWeight in 4667, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4667)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)
    Series
    Schriften zur Informationswissenschaft; Bd.41
    Source
    Wissen in Aktion: Der Primat der Pragmatik als Motto der Konstanzer Informationswissenschaft. Festschrift für Rainer Kuhlen. Hrsg. R. Hammwöhner, u.a
  18. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: Bessere Information durch Zusammenfassen aus dem WWW (1999) 0.01 
    0.012536607 = product of:
  0.06268303 = sum of:
    0.024585744 = weight(_text_:und in 4496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024585744 = score(doc=4496,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07245795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 4496, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4496)
    0.009260627 = weight(_text_:in in 4496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009260627 = score(doc=4496,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 4496, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4496)
    0.028836664 = weight(_text_:der in 4496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028836664 = score(doc=4496,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.073026784 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.3948779 = fieldWeight in 4496, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4496)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)
    Abstract
    Am Beispiel der Knochenmarktransplantation, eines medizinischen Spezialgebietes, wird im folgenden dargelegt, wie man BenutzerInnen eine großen Teil des Aufwandes bei der Wissensbeschaffung abnehmen kann, indem man Suchergebnisse aus dem Netz fragebezogen zusammenfaßt. Dadurch wird in zeitkritischen Situationen, wie sie in Diagnose und Therapie alltäglich sind, die Aufnahme neuen Wissens ermöglicht. Auf einen Überblick über den Stand des Textzusammenfassens und der Ontologieentwicklung folgt eine Systemskizze, in der die Informationssuche im WWW durch ein kognitiv fundiertes Zusammenfassungssystem ergänzt wird. Dazu wird eine Fach-Ontologie vorgeschlagen, die das benötigte Wissen organisiert und repräsentiert.
  19. Summarising software for publishing (1996) 0.01 
    0.0112154735 = product of:
  0.08411605 = sum of:
    0.07876942 = weight(_text_:software in 5121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07876942 = score(doc=5121,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12969498 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = 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)
    0.005346625 = weight(_text_:in in 5121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005346625 = score(doc=5121,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 5121, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5121)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    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
  20. Gomez, J.; Allen, K.; Matney, M.; Awopetu, T.; Shafer, S.: Experimenting with a machine generated annotations pipeline (2020) 0.01 
    0.009583497 = product of:
  0.07187623 = sum of:
    0.06431496 = weight(_text_:software in 657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06431496 = score(doc=657,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12969498 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = 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)
    0.00756127 = weight(_text_:in in 657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00756127 = score(doc=657,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 657, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=657)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    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 87
  • d 16
  • chi 2
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 98
  • m 4
  • el 3
  • r 2
  • s 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects